HomeMy WebLinkAbout030915_cabs01County Administrator Briefing
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Carl Smith, Community Development Director
DATE: March 9, 2015
SUBJECT: Coordination through the Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee (JGMSC) on required updates to population projections for
comprehensive plans and the County Wide Planning Policies.
ATTACHMENTS: A: Draft population estimates for updating the City and County comp
plans
B: Proposed prior and current amendments to the County Wide
Planning Policies.
C: Resolution No. 55 -03 adopting population projections for the period
2000 -2024
D: Resolution No. 14 -10, adding a representative from the Hadlock
UGA to the JGMSC.
E: Resolution No. 107 -91; establishing a growth management
committee to prepare county wide policies.
F: Resolution 128 -92, Adopting County Wide Planning Policies.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The County and City of Port Townsend are each in the process of updating their GMA
comprehensive plans. An essential part of this work is for the two jurisdictions to agree on an
update to the population forecasts for the new 20 -year planning period of 2016 -2036. This
requirement is contained within the County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP's). A committee for
this purpose was established via Resolution No. 107 -91. This committee has come to be known
as the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC). It is necessary for this
committee to meet in the near future to review and approve updated population forecasts as
well as potential additional amendments of the CWPP's.
ANALYSIS:
The requirement for County Wide Planning Policies comes from the GMA at 36.70A.210. The
purpose is to promote orderly growth and coordination between counties and cities within
counties. Additionally, there are certain subject areas that CWPP's are required to address.
The first edition of CWPP's was adopted in 1992 via County Resolution No. 128 -92. The
CWPP "s have been amended several times since then, most significantly for the purpose of
updating population forecasts for use in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plans. This occurred
in 1996, via Resolution No. 96 -46; and in 2003, via Resolution No. 55 -03.
County Administrator Briefing
The JGMSC was established in 1991, via Resolution No. 107 -91. The JGMSC has met
periodically since then as the need arose. As both the County and the City are now in the
process of updating their comprehensive plans for a new 20 -year planning period of 2016 -2036,
it is necessary for the JGMSC to meet regarding the update of the population forecasts for this
new planning horizon. The JGMSC is composed of all three County Commissioners, three
members of the Port Townsend City Council a member from the Port Hadlock future UGA and a
member from the Port of Port Townsend.
At present, the non -BOCC members are:
City of Port Townsend: Mayor David King, and Councilmembers Kris Nelson and Michelle
Sandoval.
Port of Port Townsend: Commissioner Steve Tucker
Hadlock UGA: TBD
FISCAL IMPACT /COST- BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Other than a commitment of staff and Board member time, no significant expense is anticipated
for convening meetings of the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a briefing on this topic and provide any comments, and indicate possible dates and times
that Board members could attend a meeting of the JGMSC
REVIEWED BY:
Phi ip Morley, t6ghty AdministrahsP
Date
ATTACHEMENTS A
N
N
a
U)
O
L
L
- C
U U
=
Q
N -O
C
m
N O
CU (D (�
O p
4
0_ m0 w
� m-0
ca
m
- C
U
0 a O
L O
N
H-
H L
C �..,
m m
O
a) C
U
U
a)
p
.--o
7 .r0
O) O 3
a) a)
0_ O
u7w
0_ p0_ fl-
O -0
C
C
Off-,
4--
cli co
0_ T C
O 'C
41
'�
0 N m
O N-o
m �., p
0_Ca
� _O
V" C
0 a)
L
-0 m-0 m
N
a) _
O D
N
Ln co
m
U
N
N p Q
E
Co
C
'r-
Q
D1
E
p N
C
p 0
L m
7
Y
0)
Q
EC o
wCU
L)
U)i b0
m
a)
C
0
m 0
U �i m
L .0 C
p " m
0.�
C
C L L
(D p (6
a)
Y6
a)
c0
m tin U) Q
p O
T
0.._
0_
y O
C
U
7
7
O 0)
O a)
:_�
O C
U
O U%
a=
O. Vi C.
C -
N U L
S) C +
V N
_r_
Q
a)
d p c
-J
�>�
°�
o°c
° n�
(Q
LL
O a) C
.� C p
Cp 0
N
U
O
O
C ,t4,,(D
Q) E U
U
O
> Q
m ch
-0
Q
O
-L 0)
O_ "'
0_ 41
n
(n
m
o
:3 —0 LL
"
_r
CD
° �
c m
:.E
2 7
'a
M
Q ca
N r 0_ E
)
[� �.. 0
o3c
-O -0 4
p°o
m a) m
Oogr
U��
�
M:
Eam
a
M
c0
CO
o 0 0 o
m
p
o
0) w
'�
O
T
w
O
0.. m
00 m m
O >Q) O
..
U
Ta a)
N 7: 7
E
U N 0)
O>_
C_
O
-)
wU c°
o
U g 0)
°�
o 0
0�
O
0) �(o0
o
0 0
°0
=3
Co
m
O
C
to O_ R)
N w C
O C
0
~
to
��
N
N
'O 'O 'O '6
>'
Q 0_.a
U...."L
m N m
0cm�'C)
Nma2_
-'
3 ;:E
w
'D
z
000
J
Qi
o
7-
U
a
N
N
3 N x
O
a)
-0
a)
L c
oor�m�.
L
•- m p
?rn�
�
rc�
_
M _m
C
U
°
� m-
0
0 3� D
° o
a
')Q° m
E a) o f
o ��
U) o 0
e
O
a c0 O O
Q
LL c c a-
N E O
o
'+-
E
Q1
a
N
co in 0-
n
a)
m O
O-0 6
-O L
C a)
3 a)
Z
C a) C)
>
Z a) L (E C
7
L
p
V
p
O
LL
-0 'i
N
p y 73 o m
m
n p 0)
O
.o
a)
co
O cn
Q
m
�� m
O 9
'0
�
J
r
O U)
�
U c �
O m—
'6 m
Qcc�
a)
L
M
in
ch
O
Cl)
Q a) — ._
-O
'O a
Q
0 3 0 .0 m
O
O
� C
p
N
a--)
O
m
°)
i
O
N
O
cV
-
c :D a)
E
0
J v, m Q�
Q Q
Cn m m
U)
G
a
I"-
Q 0 O_
U
Q I) to
.�...
N
N
C
@
Q
@
N
Q
F-
Q
CD
D
N
Q)
m
N
3
Ca)
L
LL
0 0
N
3 0
O '6
aid
C
@
L
7
O °
0 a co
O w 0
U O C
O
@ CO E
co O
C
E @
0 E
-0 O CD
L U
>. 3
0) C Q
z
N OU
0 (D
@ a) N L CL
0 3 0 N �.o
a
L
L Y J
U -0�-+
U O O
O > U LL 0
C) CU (D N
m _r
iU-0 C 0 d
�.0� � 0�
O
Q Q 6
CL E
Q N U O
L N E c: @ J
@ O 6 0
0 0 0 f a M d
a Cl Q CL O O 6
_0
3 a co roc U
O L @
7 O
U Q
p T _C C a) a) a)
U N m a) C-0 Q
V- i � N -0 W 1
O U N C a) -O 0
a>o o -C o
N 3 C
0a) °moo 0La3
U O LL @ O O 0
a�LL o_0 0 0
'0
3 @ @ @ 3 E
(D -0 a) 0 E
c
�_ va0i o 00
C O C t U@
a) O =
�aQO �3a�
Q N o-
C
O
7
Q
N_
V
@
c
O
U
a1
'o
CL
Q
O
a
d
I
m
c �
c m
Ra
o
m �
`m
rn�
c s
E
c 3
m
a�
3 v
° O
0
J O
0 3
T#
R
m m
Y �p
N �
d C
L C
C R
LQ
3 at0i j,
L �
m �
0
� U
m �
o vOi
m � y
R U
0 N
� O
L �
No F
N d Q
3 5 7
°
w o �
m m -cJ
c m o
L S.
U �
N°
� E o
� m R
rR x
ar o
n '�a
o j
@ " R
O fL
-a
0 3
m o �
C J [3
ro
y N
N ry Q
o S J
° c �
3
0
U 3 0
r p
N # N
�r
-a
N
1
3
U Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O C«
CL
p~j
i
V
0
r-
N
0 3
O 0O
V
N
r
rO^
0 E V
N O
C M
3 O
06
U
V!
Y m
°o
U
t
co
c
o
O 3
co
M
r
O O
Ym ♦L�
y
C d
d
Q1
CL
a �
Y +' C' O
LO
co
M
r
O
m
V O G
co
M
M
i
co
;r O
V'
N
N
Of
V
ci
= o
Q N
(D
-0
U) a U)
m
a
a
o'R
d
<
d
o
3
O 0
o
a
O@
CL
CL .
0.
UN
.
i
30 V
Q c
J
C_
O
Y
H =
'[ '—
—
F
o �
��
W
o
0
a
U
a.
i
j
S
N
M
co
m
c �
c m
Ra
o
m �
`m
rn�
c s
E
c 3
m
a�
3 v
° O
0
J O
0 3
T#
R
m m
Y �p
N �
d C
L C
C R
LQ
3 at0i j,
L �
m �
0
� U
m �
o vOi
m � y
R U
0 N
� O
L �
No F
N d Q
3 5 7
°
w o �
m m -cJ
c m o
L S.
U �
N°
� E o
� m R
rR x
ar o
n '�a
o j
@ " R
O fL
-a
0 3
m o �
C J [3
ro
y N
N ry Q
o S J
° c �
3
0
U 3 0
r p
N # N
�r
-a
N
1
a�
w
w
0
o �
N
O (L6
s= �
o L
I �
O O
to �-
=p O
R) 1-
L
00
C
M a)
L U
3 N
L �
Y
O �
U) (�
RS
Q
R3
n C)
Iv
of
N w.
N ,2
w (n
L
O O
U O
RS �
2-2
Q O
Q
L N
T �
0 U
O 0
o �
0
o
-C-
E
L
M
o 0
`m
-� o
O N
N T
— c
E U
(n o
C
O
3
s
N_
O
a
C
R1
C
c
a_
.0
Q
C
C
V.
Y
C
Q
R
�I
C
y
y
z
RS N
U
F
f
O
� O
(p (p Y C
O
o
O
O
O
r.
7
rM N EQ rt+
N
co
O
r-
N
N._
(O
W
N N $ V p
.-
b�
p
N
a
i-
O
O
y C N
O L
a0
C V
M
U vti
' �
N
s
O w
O
f6
m
apic3CO
M
a o
F
U
U
i
C
CD
R O e N
LL
Lw 2
o
LL
C (i
M
O
a)
6
f6
E
O
e)
N
06
4
Il-
co
i
a O
7 0
3 J
(0 v°
n(n
L Y
CL
a�
d
Y Y (p
LO
O
O
r
O
C4 co
r
r
61. :
W
d, m.;p
r
co
co
to
N..
M.
.O MN
C4
Lo
c'J
co
. �..,
- N..
.r-
a.
d
(D
ar
O —CO °
r
Q
'; O.
N
O
N
r
O
t
£
r
�
N,
LO
i
3 N
N
r
(O
M
w
N
ti
N
W O
�
,�.
p
1
1
a
1
m t
LO
�
�
v
n
1
CJ
u 3°M
N p 0 0
O
r
LO
r
O
M
T
O QNN
M'
r
L.
N
a
)
O C
a O
M
O
Cl)
;
(0
N
1,
_ ry�
co
O..
N:
O A
7
O
M
N
N .
N
N
i
)
3
Q
ama
a In
Q
O
`
F
J
a d
cc
�030�
RS
d
�-
m
d
cR
0�3Q
m
jQ
ca
m0-
-pa0o
a.
00�
3
C
3
V
O V
a C
c
oV
f �a
=m
WI
0
i
v
7
v
N
M
V
U')
(o
r
co
E
�I
C
y
y
z
U
F
O
W w
s.
O �
V �
r.
7
N �
oro m
G 4
v
N
a
b�
T
y C N
C V
M
U vti
' �
N
O w
O
f6
m
a o
F
U
U
i
C
O N
LL
Lw 2
C a
° J
.0
a)
f6
E
om
Uw 'o
7 0
3 J
(0 v°
n(n
�I
C
y
y
z
O
a
C
L
3
N
0
O
E
E
0
U
m
aS
O
C
C
CL
7
3
L
O N
� U
� )
_T
.T� C
C O
0 O
8L
CD
U
a) �
0 3
Q C
O O
0 U
O
o O
19
M C
a)
0 0
O �
O
a)
0 0
a) a
E m
L
O �
C i-
O_ Q
w�
a) C
U)
C
3
U 10—
O �. Q
a)
L
o
S
O
C U 1
w
O
w-0
E'D 0
0-6
_
41
CD
0) U
(n -p
a) C -
0 0
M .O (6
C a)
C O
0
Q
m8Q.Q0
M C E
U
.0 Q C
�
N s E
" LD
tl) ....
E .X
C U r
0 0
+T' N
C L
0 L
O_ N
O
o
a @
E
U
ID T
-O Q
3
O C N
O �. Q
a)
L
Co
G2
a) N
F
a)
a3 L)
OO Y
C
U
Q
O
�.
x � =
C O
0
a)
(D Y
L
Q
D C [4
Y
4-•..
O U)
Vim:
0
mica
-0 CO
L Q
E
o n T
00 0 YO
!Z
Y
O L =
= .3
a)
O
CD
o
0 �
m
Q)
Of
a
�n 0
c
a
Q)
L N
E co
p
a) a-
0 CL L)
Y
—
7
-0 o C
S Q
O
CL
0
Co
0-0 a)
a)
0 U N
U
a3 T
0
aspa)�
O
U
i
Ens
V)
Q =NE
C
a)
H O
T
V
� Q O N
Q > N
M U
U) 0 O
I- O U) a
a)
n O
O_ C a
a) N
U >
> O
OO Y
p h
h C
C O
a)
L e0 QO
(D a) v
CD 0. L . N
N C O YO O) C
C' O y C
m
u t _ F. 3
O-Q• N.h
W Qa) mQ n
? 0 o c
(6 o C M.0
7
� Q)
C E 'O. �.� (6
N�...:
V) l0
L U C 6
O C
IL p 0 0 m m
Lo N N a O O
N N C- Co) R o
C)'
aS 0 co Q O N
O_ o o
T 'O
U N U N a 3
y a) U) a) O M
L 0r' Qy U.)
a) p a) C O
W 00 Y 4
a5 0 0 (L6 p L 0
CL O C U 6
o a 3 N 0 0
N C O Y 3
3 C C p 0 p C
a - O 6 0
+(D o J L J (6
0 O_ t- a
-0 O O O 0
.coatL�aa
a)
s n
3� 0
a
wLD n
C Ln
0 (6 r
w
M 30 0
M -6 T
J C
m
If O_
O 0 U
U O O
(n L 6
(D
CL
LL
N1
a) L W
0 C
L U aS
= O >
C
0 ;tf M
a3� CM
u O (D
N c} N
M
w . t- N
N C to a)
L 3
N
N CL
0 0
3 Q
O C
N to
N o,
E ln
O 0) M M
C W V)
� O
E 0 o c
7 0 O
X M r N
E U M O_
U >
M U 0 O_
O U U .0
O 0 V
C
C Q) i
C a m
O a) Q) t
L E TY
q L o a)
N N U
a3 L (D O N -O 0
�
a) C
cy, M 4) N
a E a)
E_
o E o —
C O 0
M M -0 Q
y
r
ATTACHEMENTS B
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY
A POLICY FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT ANI3 :LiAIN FENANCE
OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
ioa`- Phis docnmenf uses the Zt7U9 p� n,��s� d -i - =z oclrncnts
as its base Ally ne1-vploposed
atner7cinrerrts/ rrrinorreiyr 'itesireie9en6fied3ssuch) Itemrtlr�tYrebolded /hiA1rI2:Khfec9aremrrsiderecl
"critic 111 Por fhe Z(J! h L',NLA process.
INTRODUCTION:
The opening section of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) sets forth the following
legislative finding:
"uncoordinated and unplanned growth together with a lack of common goals
expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our
lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and
the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the state ".
The legislature went on to develop a state -wide growth management strategy encompassing
the following goals:
• Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
• Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low- density development.
• Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based
on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
• Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
• Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state
that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for
all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the
capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
• Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected
from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
• Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed
in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
• Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries,
including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and
Revised. (Y3; 151
L`�
discourage incompatible uses.
• Open space and recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
• Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
• Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
• Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary
to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service
levels below locally established minimum standards.
• Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
• Shoreline management For shorelines of the state the goals and policies of the
The passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) fundamentally changed the way com-
prehensive land use planning is carried out in the state. The GMA requires that cities and counties
update their comprehensive land use plans consistent with state -wide goals and minimum
requirements as established by the statute and coordinate their planning efforts with each other. The
central theme behind the Growth Management Act 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; and by managing growth and development, the negative effects can be minimized and the
benefits can be maximized.
The act is built on the principle that Cities and Counties, special purpose districts and those
agencies or jurisdictions involved in the delivery of public services will coordinate their efforts
consistent with each other and the provisions of the act. In an effort to assure these principles are
carried out, the legislature passed companion legislation requiring Counties and Cities to coordinate
the independent development of local comprehensive plans through a set of mutually developed
County -wide Planning Policies. These written policy statements are to address eight subject areas and
are intend to be used as a guiding framework for subsequent development and adoption of
comprehensive plans. The required County -wide Planning Policy subject areas include:
• the designation of Urban Growth Areas
promotion of contiguous and orderly development and the provision of urban services to
such development
joint county and city planning within urban growth areas
the siting of essential public facilities of a county or state wide significance
• county -wide transportation facilities and strategies
• the need for affordable housing for all economic segments of the population
Reri,ed: (3,"3 i 1 ?)
2
lam'
county -wide economic development and employment
analysis of fiscal impact.
In addition to the eight required policy areas, the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County
agreed to add policies pertaining to rural areas and the context within which the County -wide
Planning Policies are to be used.
THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING PROCESS:
The County -wide Planning Policies were developed through a collaborative process between
the City and County, public service providers, utilities, special purpose districts and community or-
ganizations. The development of these policies has been overseen by a steering committee comprising
the three Jefferson County Commissioners (B.G. Brown, Larry
Dennison, and Richard Wojt), two Port Townsend City Council members (Jean Camfield and Norma
owsley) and Port Townsend Mayor John Clise.
Background information leading up to the development of these policies is found in a
discussion "white paper' paper titled County -Wide Planning Policies: A Strategic Analysis. This "white
paper' provides an in -depth discussion of the legislative background, strategic elements or issues
concerning local application and policy considerations for each of the policy areas. Copies of the
"white paper" are available from the Office of the County Commissioners, County Courthouse. The
"white paper" is not adopted as part of the County -wide Planning Policies.
The County -wide Planning Policies represent a composite framework, not a series of
individual, stand -alone concepts. The ideas represented here balance each other to create an overall
direction for development of individual comprehensive plans. These policies establish the foundation
for determining consistency of individual plans with each other and with the tenets of the Growth
Management Act, as well as a mechanism to coordinate the provision of public facilities and services
throughout the community. Finally, these policies encompass broad concepts encouraging flexibility
and innovation in meeting the goals and intent of the Growth Management Act and will, like the
planning documents they are intended to guide, evolve over time.
•_. _ r .rr a . _ r n .. r r r
REF
r.•
Revised: U3 151
�jpjatC2(4 tO
H4LUt 41P
A114 pFovision's
of th" 'IC4 It is jutolidod
that the,-- protective
as
.. eiicoI44passed by tile P!A?u4i14g PiDlicies
Revised: U3 151
4
POLICY #1
POLICY TO IMPLEMENT RCW 36.70A.1 10
URBAN GROWTH AREAS
1. The County and City will jointly prepare a regional population forecast for growth management
planning purposes. T f usinx the Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OEM) population projection s *ua.�1nP. -o� =r �r�h a tin
and hig This forecast will delineate a tom—, twenty -= "year om
population projection and be used in the preparation of water, utility and transportation plans and
for the capital improvement plans to implement the same. To assure consistent and coordinated
planning horizons, the population forecast will be designated as the official source reference by
the County and City, and utilized when determining consistency of special purpose district service
plans. The forecast shall be reviewed and updated ^ , e ° ; °w °periodically, pursuant
to RCW M.70A.130.
2. For planning purposes, the capacity of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) will be, size.,J to accommodate
at least 4 00% of the low
Irian -=ate anticipated'population according to the allocation determined jointly through
adoption of the population projection under i 'above. (Note: The GMA does not direct where
people may choose to live, however, it does require that urban development be accommodated
within urban growth areas. This policy is forwarded to ensure that UGAs and their attendant
facilities are properly sized to accommodate future populations.)
3. The size and delineation of boundaries of UGAs will be determined by the following criteria:
• adequate amount of developable land to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 20 years
based on the joint population forecast.
• sufficient developable land for residential, commercial and industrial uses to sustain a healthy
Revi,ed: 0.3 15)
local and regional economy.
• lands within incorporated city limits.
lands already characterized by urban development which are currently served or are planned
to be served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and stornt drainage, schools and other urban
services within the next twenty years; provided that such urban services which are not yet in
place are included in a capital facilities plan.
• the type and degree of existing urban services necessary to support urban development at the
adopted interim level of service standards.
sufficient area for the designation of greenbelts and open space corridors.
topographical features or environmentally sensitive areas which may form natural boundaries
such as bays, watersheds, rivers or ridge lines.
4. There are two UGAs in Jefferson County, Port Townsend and Port Hadlock & lrondale. Port
Townsend is the only incorporated UGA in Te fferson r,,,..,+.,
aA Port Ludlow.and Bannon are considered being "characterized by urban growth. "49r the
Both have been €er# �udlev
designated a Master Planned Resort -(MPRi through RCW 36.70A:362; Port Ludlow at the time of
adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan in 199$ and Brinnon in 20 ".
The Irondale & Port
Hadlock UGA was designated in 2002, with goalspolicies internal land use districts and
development regulations being adopted in 2004. The " :
5. Land use plans, regulations and capital facility plans within each UGA will be designed to
accommodate the projected population. Growth should be directed into t-wo- tiers: first tier -
existing commercial centers and urbanized areas where the six (6) year capital facilities plan is
prepared to provide urban infrastructure; second tier - areas included within the capital facilities
plan to receive the full range of urban services within twenty (20) years. Infrastructure
improvements necessary to support development in the second her will be provided by the
Revi,ed: (3, 1 1 > )
developer concurrent with development, or by public entities as a result of implementing all or a
portion of the capital facilities plan.
�C Vic: AIL -� lit i.'iil'OI f 1 -- ijc 41!'C' ,1'026 j17 y i /;i hey ;) _lllClfJLI /li. ?Il. �fc'T J — LL 1l] 121:1 c':ZIL
6. UGA boundaries may be changed whenever it can be shown that the criteria set forth above for
size and boundary delineation may no longer be met; provided, said expansion shall only occur
after the capital facilities plan is updated and adopted assuring adequate urban service to support
the additional area.
7. Before adopting boundaries of UGAs, interim level of service standards for public services and
facilities located inside and outside of UGA's will be adopted by the County and its UGAs. New
urban public facilities will only be provided within and not be extended beyond UGAs, unless
deemed as an essential public service to mitigate a threat to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
S. UGAs will be separated from each other by designated rural or resource lands, open space
corridors, or unique topographic features such as a stream or ravine.
9 z� �n �f i aa _ rt ter nd °d d -
I \eFl3ed: (3,3 1
POLICY #2
POLICY ON THE PROMOTION OF CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
AND THE PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
1. The full range of governmental urban services at the adopted level of service standards will be
planned for and provided within UGAs, as defined in the capital facilities plan, including
community water, sanitary sewer, piped fire flow, and storm water systems.
Z. The County is the designated planning agency for unincorporated UGAs. A citizens advisory
committee will be appointed for each unincorporated UGA to guide development of a community
plan for these areas. Said plan will include the following elements: capital facilities, utilities, open
space, recreation, housing, land use and transportation.
3. New development will meet the adopted level of service standards established for UGAs as a
condition of project approval. Said standards will include interim provisions for those urban
facilities identified in the capital facilities plan but not yet developed. New development will
contribute its proportionate share towards provision of urban facilities identified in the capital
facilities plan once adopted in compliance with the Growth Management Act.
4. Urban services and facilities will not be extended beyond UGA boundaries unless needed to
mitigate a threat to the public health or welfare, or to protect an area of environmental sensitivity.
To avoid encouraging the spreading of urban development outside of UGAs, this policy shall apply
only to threats caused by existing development, and only those existing uses requiring the service
or facility to mitigate the threat will be allowed to hook up to any extended services.
5. Priority for the funding of new or expanded public services and facilities will first be given to those
which are responding to capacity deficiencies within UGAs or to those which provide an
inducement for development within UGAs or to those responding to a public health threat.
R= vi-wd: '3'1>
(z
6. The minimum design capacity for all planned capital facilities will be based upon the total
population projected for the service area at the end of the twenty year period identified in the
adopted population forecast.
7. The County will, in consultation with City of Port Townsend, P-+d-14h Jefferson County PUD, and
other public and private water purveyors, update the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP);
based on the joint population forecast and new data pertaining to future water supply and
demand. The water supply and service provisions of an updated CWSP may require revisions to
land use elements and community plans. Comprehensive plans shall include water quality and
water conservation policies and standards.
as n -
Complet n❑ ofwatershed planIli efeff"orts finder
Cha ier 9c} h? RCW may tlrompt Fcvisions to the CWSP and /or land use elculents.
Revised- (; , 15
9
POLICY #3
POLICY ON JOINT COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING
WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS
(Note: There are two UGAs in Jefferson County, Port Townsend and Port Hadlock & Irondaie. Port
Townsend is the only incorporated UGA Port Ludlow and Brinnon are considered beins
"characterized by urban growth. Cua+Gutfy there is ei4ly te4 ,!GA ,,444 r ft4.4'�,u
of .
in
\\ noy, and ii; tk@ 4aill;0, they anticipate that 44'jifiouAl areas 144ay inGerpoFatG
1 ft �' [JS477
1. Incorporated UGAs within the County and each provider of urban services within UGAs will assist
the County in the planning, coordination, and establishment of urban services and facilities to
serve the projected twenty year population.
2. The County and incorporated UGAs will coordinate the development and implementation of plans
for the provision of county -wide services including public safety, transportation, solid waste, storm
drainage facilities, water and waste water utilities_
3. Incorporated UGAs will work cooperatively with the County to identify and protect open space
corridors. This process will include:
• identification of open space corridors and urban separators.
• identification of open space lands and corridors within UGAs.
• identification of implementation strategies and regulatory and non - regulatory techniques to
protect the corridors.
4. By interlocal agreement, incorporated urban areas and the County will establish a framework for
joint planning, SEPA environmental review and decision making for unincorporated lands located
Rc�i >cd: i 3 v l
10
within the incorporated urban area UGA.
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.
6. Due to the large scale nature and the impacts associated with new fully contained communities,
o, v a,.�4,1, hP ,r + # a thorough study of these types of
development should be undertaken before implementation of RC kV :SF.70A.550. '+ Boa d h� a
} k _Che Connh Cotnpreltensive 131at�Plan —ill needs
to be modified to include provisions for fully contained communities�n'ior to pursuit of Ehis
IM—Ion [J551.
7. The County and each incorporated UGA which has a pending development proposal shall ensure
timely circulation of development applications for review and comment by other agencies with
jurisdiction.
Rey iscd ii 3 1:)
11
POLICY #4
POLICY ON THE SITING OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
OF A COUNTY OR STATE WIDE SIGNIFICANCE
1. Essential public facilities are defined as: "Public or privately -owned facilities that are required to
accommodate basic public needs, including those facilities that are typically difficult to site,
including local waste handling and treatment facilities such as landfills, drop -box sites and sewage
treatment facilities, airports, state educational facilities, essential state public facilities, regional
transportation and stormwater drainage, utility facilities, state and local correctional facilities, and
in- patient facilities (including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group
homes)."
2. The County and incorporated UGAs will jointly e_,, maintain_ specific siting criteria for and
continually coordinate on the siting of essential public facilities. j+�o xose4 -i n �' �
„ a °s5t3t�Elements of siting
criteria should include, but not be limited to the following:
proximity to major transportation routes and essential infrastructure.
*.A and use compatibility with surrounding area.
.... potential environmental impacts.
• ... effects on resource and critical areas.
• proximity to UGA.
public costs and benefits including operation and maintenance.
• current capacity and location of equivalent facilities.
the existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity.
3. Comprehensive plans and development regulations will not preclude the siting of essential public
facilities; however, standards may be generated to insure that reasonable compatibility with other
land uses can be achieved.
Kcei ed. ( �3 1=5)
12
4. Essential public facilities sited outside of urban growth areas should be self - supporting and not
require the extension, construction, or maintenance of urban services and facilities unless no
practicable alternative exists. adopied k�- -critcria will !, � 4,-',.(4-4a4- address the
provision of services when siting an essential public facility. Essential public facilities shall not be
located in resource lands or critical areas if incompatible.
Revised: (:' 15)
13
r,
POLICY #5
POLICY ON COUNTY -WIDE TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND STRATEGIES
1. The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) wilPhas developed a
Peninsula regiall Regional `«t:r =- Transportation plan -Plan for the La ',n4z,° North
Olympic and Kitsap Peninsula areas. The City and County comprehensive plans 441 -shall each
d�gntain a transportation element tothe that emphasizes local
transportation needs and provides linkage to the ReRionai Plan in order to ensure consistency. 4+4
kn nts
2. Service standards for highways, arterial, and transit routes will be coordinated and adopted at a
county -wide level. These standards may vary depending on the type of development pattern
anticipated (i.e., urban vs. rural) or by the specific growth management objectives being
considered. When a variance to level of service standards is established, it will be clearly
delineated in the transportation and land use element of the comprehensive plan.
3. In developing the County's six year road program, the priority of focus should be:
• ... first, to maintain or expand capacity within the UGAs.
•... second, to maintain or expand capacity for transportation to and from UGAs and regional
centers.
4. The land use and transportation elements of the comprehensive plan will be used by Jefferson
Transit as a guide in the development of its service delivery strategy. The thrust of this strategy
is to increase ridership and expand transportation options within UGAs, between UGAs, and
between the county and the region at large.
Key iced: 13.3 15)
14
5. Jefferson International Airport will remain the public link to the larger air transportation system.
The Port of Port Townsend will have the lead responsibility to develop a service delivery strategy
for this mode of transportation consistent with the transportation and land use elements of the
County comprehensive plan.
6. The development or expansion of any air -based or water -based transportation system will require
specific linkage with the ground transportation system and compatibility with the land use element
of the comprehensive plans.
7. in establishing the land use element of comprehensive plans and the level of service standards for
transportation systems within UGAs, the City and County will insure that use densities, design
elements and development policies are supportive and make accommodation for public transit and
non - motorized forms of transportation.
S. The transportation element of the comprehensive plans will -shall be designed around the following
principles:
• ... seek to increase efficiency of the existing transportation system.
*...emphasize the movement of people and goods first, and vehicles second.
• ... encourage and integrate non - motorized modes and high occupancy vehicles in transportation
system design.
*...encourage employers to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques.
This is particularly true in the review of new employment generators at a fixed location.
• ... seek to assure that the proportionate share of costs of new or upgraded transportation facilities
are borne by those who create the need for the facility, as well as those who benefit from it.
9. The I� tioti_"4,elements of th � o ii:;rc lwnswe pl Iris provide a
summary and analysis of planning information including:
• ...land use assumptions upon which the transportation element is based including: population,
employment by type, recreation, comprehensive land use designations, and the density of
Re._ised: is 3 s -1
15
current and projected development including the ratio of single and multi - family units to total
housing units within UGAs.
. _..level of service standards for arterials and collectors.
.... an analysis and forecast of future transportation needs.
.... evaluate the operation and maintenance of transportation facilities in a manner which
considers present and future operation and maintenance costs.
.... incorporate pedestrian and bicycle travel as part of the transportation element within a
coordinated and regional basis. The bicycle and pedestrian component shall be a part of the
funding component of the capital improvement program for transportation improvements.
10. The adopted level of service standards will be used in evaluating concurrency for long -range
transportation planning, development review and programming of transportation improvements.
Revi<ul (�'3�
15
16
POLICY #6
POLICY ON THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1. For planning purposes the definition of "affordable housing" is: Those housing units available for
purchase or rent to individuals or families with a gross income between the federally recognized
poverty level and the median income for working families in Jefferson County, and wary +whose
costs, including utilities, would not exceed 30% of gross Jnc0md.[JS61.
2. The provision of affordable housing is acknowledged as a general public need and will be
addressed in Jefferson County primarily through private sector programs and projects. as well as
171:—
pnlAic as non- profit
=.ard quasi - public entities.
3. The housing and /or land use elements of comprehensive plans will include an assessment of land
available and the process of siting special purpose housing (such as homeless shelters, group
homes, etc.), to ensure that such housing can be accommodated.
4. A sufficient quantity of land will be appropriately zoned or designated to accommodate a wide
range of housing types, densities and mixtures. Multi- family housing should only be located
within UGAs. i \APRs. or rural centers.
5. Ail affordable housing strategy will be developed as part of the housing element of the
comprehensive plan. This affordable housing strategy will examine existing regulations and
policies to identify opportunities to encourage the provision of affordable housing mechanisms
such as accessory dwelling units ("mother-in -law") or efficiency apartments, density bonuses,
mitigation fees waivers, priority permit processing and the like.
6. Each UGA shall accommodate its fair share of housing affordable to low and moderate income
Rev;scd -(3r3 ]3)
17
Zl/
households according to its percentage share of the county population and by promoting a
balanced mix of diverse housing types.
7. Undeveloped land owned by the public entities will be inventoried and those that are
appropriately located should be considered for development of low income housing.
Consideration of assembling these parcels for development by non- profit housing organizations or
private developers should be encouraged.
S. The housing element will include criteria for locating higher density residential areas near public
facilities and services, commercial services, arterial or within walking distance of jobs or transit.
R,evi eel. i
POLICY #7
POLICY ON COUNTYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
1. The private sector is primarily responsible for the creation of economic opportunity in Jefferson
County. The responsibility of the public sector is to assure that these activities are carried out
consistent with defined community and environmental values. To this end, comprehensive plans
should clearly identify these values in order that economic opportunity is not lost due to confusion
or unreliability of process. Particular attention will be given to the needs of non - service sector
businesses and industries as a strategy to increase wage earning potential within the community.
2. An economic development element should- -shall be pe4,and-included in the County's and
incorporated areas' comprehensive plans. This element should identify and designate adequate
areas for commercial, retail, and industrial growth necessary to sustain and meet future
population and employment forecasts. The economic development element shall be coordinated
with the capital facility, land use and utilities elements of the comprehensive plan.
3. Each UGA and rural center is considered the commercial and business "hub" in their respective
area of the County. UGAs should be viewed as regional service and retail centers, while the rural
center focus is on local community retail and service needs, and transient accommodations.
4. 1"hc �u�� A coo nnsp;ros"(sons for tai of ,lln;or InLIIISI alit Dt, � c!csnn�ent� tMIDs) Luic�er°
i1.atCertainindustries.
due to their size or type of operation, or due to their dependence on the local resource base, should
not be located within the boundaries of UGAs. When locating these types of activities outside of
UGAs, special attention must be given to assure that the activity will not promote "urban
development" of the surrounding area. These activities will need to be self - supporting and not
require the extension of urban I ervicestas7i.
Re ieed: Uri 15)
19
i
5. r FF
A4 "'1 04 eltieN-W#iull NW 091114A'anA
the mew
v_ @tt @}
H4 M
�h} tne��l }tit}
of th� 11 t3 will
C W#h - t�p3fl P1"1 #^ #loS9P,
§7. The Port of Port Townsend's b'_'��"' statutory authority should be utilized as a tool to implement
industry and trade strategies; — including the promotion of employment opportunities, the
consolidation and parceling of property, and the development of infrastructure to meet the needs
of industry consistent with comprehensive plans and development regulations.
Revised: (13 15)
_70
(L
POLICY #S
POLICY ON RURAL AREAS
1. Rural areas are those lands located outside of UGAs and resource lands. These areas are
characterized by low density development, open spaces, minimal public services, resource
dependent activities, and industries; and outdoor recreational facilities. Activities such as regional
retail - commercial facilities, business office parks and similar high intensity land uses are
considered urban in nature and are inconsistent with rural area designations. The rural element
of the comprehensive plan will be designed to recognize and maintain the unique character of
individual rural areas without degrading the environment or creating the need for urban level of
services.
2. The concept of clustering or density transfer is considered a positive tool in maintaining the
character of rural areas. This concept assists in more efficient delivery of public services,
minimizes the need for additional infrastructure, and at the same time maximizes land available
for rural uses. Clustering of new development is preferred in rural areas.
3. Level of service standards will be adopted which identifies the type and scale of public facility and
infrastructure improvements anticipated for rural areas and rural centers. Typically these will
include:
• ... emergency services.
.... transportation and roads.
• ... individual septic systems.
• ... individual or community water systems.
• ... storm water and water quality.
4. Parcel sizes established for rural areas of the county should be commensurate with the character
of existing rural communities. This policy anticipates that rural areas will maintain a variety of
acreage parcels.
Revised: (3315)
21
5. Rural centers are those existing unincorporated places which serve the retail commercial and
service needs of the local area. These areas will be delineated and recognized in the
comprehensive plan consistent with level of service standards. Land uses within these centers
include:
•.,.Shopping, employment, and services for residents, supplies for resource industries, including
commercial, industrial, and tourism development at a scale that preserves the surrounding
rural characteristics.
• ...residential development, including small -lot single - family and multi - family; and mixed -use
developments.
• ... community facilities and services necessary to support the rural center and promote pedestrian
mobility.
6. 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.
Provisions will be made to ensure that adjacent land uses are not converted to urban uses due to
the proximity of these developments or to infrastructure necessary to support them.
Reci�cd: (1 3:1 �)
22
POLICY #9
POLICY ON FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Include a fiscal impact assessment on the provision of public capital facilities: that are intended to
serve the community: as an ongoing part of the comprehensive planning process. This assessment
will include project revenues and expenditures and an analysis of the cumulative fiscal impacts of
providing governmental services to accommodate the targeted population. The purpose of the
fiscal assessment is to assure that projected capital costs can be reasonably supported within the
capabilities of the community.
2. Within the elements of the comprehensive plan, incentives and non - regulatory options will be
identified and developed as alternatives to regulatory programs in the implementation of
comprehensive plan policy.
3. The City, any future incorporated UGA, and the County will address issues of tax revenue sharing,
the provision of regional services, annexations, and similar fiscal components through the
development of interlocal agreements.
Rem t cd: > 3;151
23
l
POLICY #10
POLICY ON USE, MONITORING, REVIEW AND AMENDMENT
1. The Countywide PIanning Policies will be utilized to:
• establish a framework for the development, rmd adoption, and amendment of comprehensive
plans and supporting regulations.
• ... provide a foundation for establishing locally defined terms, and to determine consistency with
the criteria of the Growth Management Act.
• ... coordinate and assure consistency among plans of the County, UGAs, special purpose districts
and service providers.
2. The Growth Management Steering Committee will serve as a regional oversight body during the
development of the comprehensive plans. Once unincorporated UGAs are identified,
representation of the unincorporated UGA will be included on the steering committee. The
committee will review draft plans for consistency with these policies in an advisory capacity and
report its findings to the appropriate jurisdiction.
3. These policies shall be periodically reviewed and may be amended in the following manner:
• ... the amendment is placed in writing and includes a brief explanation of why the amendment is
warranted, and
• ... the amendment is reviewed and commented on by the Growth Management Steering
Committee or its successor entity, and
• ... a public hearing is conducted by the County prior to amending these policies, and
• ... the amendment is agreed to by both the County Board of Commissioners and City Council of
incorporated UGAs, and
.... the amendment is adopted by the County Board of Commissioners.
Revf,ed: 0 , 1'�)
24
eti:., �reuy /aaJo3
ATTACHEMENTS C
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE )
COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT )
PLANNING POPULATION PROJECTION, )
EXTENDING THE POPULATION PROJECTION )
TO ADDRESS THE PERIOD 2000 -2024, AND )
ALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PROJECTED )
URBAN COMPONENT OF GROWTH TO PORT )
TOWNSEND, TRI -AREA AND PORT LUDLOW )
Section 1. Be It Resolved
A. FINDINGS:
RESOLUTION NO. 55 -03
On December 21, 1992 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) and the
City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County's only incorporated city, adopted the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), as required by Section .210 of the Growth
Management Act (GMA).
The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) was established pursuant
to the GMA, RCW 36.70A.210, as the collaborative process required by that statute to
provide a framework for adoption of a county -wide planning policy.
3. The Jefferson County BoCCC adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (the
Plan) in 1998. The Plan reflected the JGMSC's recommended 1996 -2016 forecast and the
disaggregation of the forecast population between urban and rural areas, and it included
specific allocations to the various urban areas within the county. The Plan adopted a
population forecast of 39,936 for the year 2016.
4. CPP Policy 1.1 requires that the county work with Port Townsend to establish updated
population forecasts and allocations.
5. Between February and April of 2003, consistent with direction contained in the CPP,
county and city staff developed a proposed update to the countywide population forecast
to address the period 2000 to 2024 and prepared suggested urban population allocations
for Port Townsend, the Tri-Area, and Port Ludlow.
6. City of Port Townsend staff and the County worked cooperatively in recommending an
update to the countywide population forecast and allocation for the period 2000 to 2024.
This discussion culminated in an April 16, 2003 consultant prepared recommendation
entitled "Joint Population Forecast & Allocation - Update."
Z/
RESOLUTION NO. 55 -03
Page: 2
7. The consultant prepared recommendation was adopted by the Port Townsend City Council
as the city's position on updated population forecast and allocation through a unanimous
7 -0 vote at their April I4, 2003 meeting.
8. The BoCC voted to extend the adopted countywide population forecast to address the
period 2000 through 2024. The recommended forecast, which falls within the acceptable
Washington State Office of Finanacial Management range, concludes that the countywide
population will grow an additional 13,840 during the period 2000 to 2024, to a county-
wide population of 40,139. Table 1 summarizes the recommended update to the
Countywide population forecast.
9. See Table below
Summary Table 1: Updated Jefferson County Population Forecast — 2000 -2024
Year
Population
Growth
2000
26,299
N/A
2024
40,139
13,840
Total Forecasted Growth
2000 -2024
40,139
10. See Table below
Summary Table 2: 2024 Population Projection & Allocation Summary*
2000 Population
Anticipated
Growth
Projected 2024
Population
Percentage of
Total County-
Composed
Annual Growth
(2000.2024)
wide Growth
Rate
2000 -2024
Port Townsend
UGA
8,344
4,985
13,329
36%
1.97%
(Incorporated)
Tri -Area UGA
2453
2,353
4,906
17%
2.76%
(Unincorporated)
Part Ludlow
1,430
2,353
3,783
17%
4.14%
MPR
(Unincorporated)
UGA/MPRTotal
12,327
9,691
22,018
70%
2A5%
Unincorporated
Rural&
13,972
4,149
18,121
3M.
1.09%
Resources Areas
County-wide
26,299
13,840
40,139
100%
1J9%
Total
- Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and 2002 Washington State OFM Population Forecasts
1
j�
m--
RESOLUTION NO. 55 -03
B. CONCLUSIONS:
Page: 3
1. The GMA requires cities and counties to determine by September 1, 2004 whether
sufficient suitable land (i.e., urban and rural) is available to accommodate the projected
population within OFM's new 20 -year forecast range (RCW 37.A.215).
2. Jurisdictions are not precluded from updating population forecasts and plans, including
UGA boundaries, in advance of the planning required by September 1, 2004 (RCW
3670A.130 and 36.70A.215).
3. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan directed the county to work cooperatively with
the City of Port Townsend to establish updated population forecasts and urban/rural
allocation.
4. The proposed allocations are reasonable and within the range of choices afforded to
jurisdictions under the GMA. They will allow ongoing and extensive planning efforts to
proceed pending adoption of a new 20 -year population target consistent with OFM's new
2000 -2024 range.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopts the following:
1: Adoption of Updated Countywide Population Forecast. Based on the concurrence of the
City of Port Townsend, the recommended countywide population forecast of 40,139 for the
period 2000 -2024 and the urban/rural allocation detailed in Summary Table 2 above, are adopted
as the GMA planning population target for Jefferson County.
this g e day of September, 2003.
o '•
s .'.
f ,
.a
s .
Lorna D elaney, Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Dan Tittemess,
(rYYNCX.4
Mackey, Member
ATTACHEMENTS D
Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COAMSSIONERS
REGULAR AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Al Scala; DCD Director "
DATE: May 24,201O
SUBJECT: Joint Growth Management Steering Committee
Port Hadlock UGA
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
This Agenda Request includes a proposed resolution to outline the process to recruit and appoint a
representative from the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area to the Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee.
ANALYSISJSTRATEGIC GOALS:
The Growth Management Steering Committee serves as aregional oversight body during the development of
comprehensive plans to assure consistency with the County Wide Planning Policies as required by the
Growth Management Act This Committee is comprised of the Board of County Commissioners, three
Council members from the City of Port Townsend, a Port of Port Townsend representative and with
approval of this resolution a representative fmm the Port Hadlock UGA.
FISCAL EWPACT:
Any fiscal impacts associated with adapting this resolution will be absorbed by the 2010 adopted budget by
Jefferson County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the BOCC approve the resolution.
I
j
Date
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of Adding a Representative RESOLUTION NO. 14.40
of the Port Hadlock UGA as a Voting --
Member to the Joint Growth
Management Steering Committee
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A.210 RCW directs the County in cooperation
with its cities, to develop a County -wide Planning Policy to be uses as a policy framework
from which county and city comprehensive plans are to be developed and adopted; and
WHEREAS, by joint resolution (County Resolution No. 107 -91 and City
Resolution No. 91 -90) Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend established a
Growth Management Committee to oversee the development of this policy; and
WHEREAS, by joint resolution (County Resolution No. 128 -92 and City
Resolution No. 92 -112) the County and City of Port Townsend jointly adopted County-
wide Planning Policies on December 21, 1992 as a foundation from which to judge
consistency between County and City Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC)
has continued to function in an advisory capacity since the adoption of the County -wide
Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, Policy #10 of the County -wide Planning Policy states °Once
unincorporated UGAs are identified, representation of the unincorporated UGA will be
included on the steering committee;" and,
WHEREAS, the Port Hadlock UGA has been formed in accordance with the
provision of the Growth Management Act found at RCW 36.70A; and,
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2010 the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board found the Port Hadlock UGA designation to be fully
compliant with the requirements of the Act
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a representative
of the Port Hadlock UGA shall be invited to take a seat on the JGMSC and if the invitation
is accepted the representative shall be considered a voting member.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the representative of the Port Hadlock
UGA shall be selected for appointment through an application process with the criteria for
selection being as follows:
Rmltdon No.lq -10 re: Add Tr{ Ar=Tort Hadlock UGA Reprmenmtfve to the Joint Growth Management Sieving Committee
Interested persons shall submit a letter of interest to the BOCC describing their
interest, experience and education as it relates to land use and community
planning.
The applicant shall reside in, own property, or own a business within the boundary
of the Port Hadlock UGA.
If more than one person applies to be the representative and meets the criteria for
appointment, all eligible persons will be interviewed by the Board of County
Commissioners who will then make the appointment based upon their review of the
letter of interest and the interview before the Board.
The Port Hadlock UGA representative shall be appointed to the JGMSC for a
period of four years starting on the day of the appointment by the BOCC.
• The representative will become ineligible to serve on the JGMSC if they cease to
reside in, own property, or own a business with the boundary of the Port Hadlock
UGA.
• The representative can be removed from the JGMSC representation by the BOCC
for malfeasance, misfeasance, or reconstitution of the JGMSC upon a majority vote
of the BOCC.
'D SIGNED this a day of Z ac 12010.
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
David Suillvan, Ch
Loa
hn Austin, Member
Page 2 of 2 f
ATTACHEMENTS E
JEFFERSON COUNTY /CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Establishment of a } COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 107 -91
County -wide Planning Policy } CITY RESOLUTION NO. 91 -6
WHEREAS, Re- engrossed Substitute House Bill 1025 directs the County,
in cooperation with its City, to develop a county -wide planning policy to be utilized as
the guiding framework in drafting growth management plans, and
WHEREAS, it is the expressed intent of Jefferson County and the City
of Port Townsend to develop said policy in a collaborative process, and;
WHEREAS, said policy must be completed and adopted by July 1, 1992.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Jefferson County and the
City of Port Townsend agree to develop a county -wide planning policy which addresses
the policy areas required by ReSHB 1025 and other areas of policy as provided for
in Attachment A, incorporated hereto, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Growth Management Committee
will serve to oversee the development of said policy, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Jefferson County shall be assigned the
primary staff responsibility to draft the policy, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that direct costs incurred, not to exceed
ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars, in the drafting and adoption of the policy shall be
reimbursed to Jefferson County from funding provided by the Washington State
Department of Community Development for completion of tasks associated with the
Growth Management Act, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution repeals and replaces
Resolution 94 -91 (County) /Resolution 91 -74 (City), and;
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, said policy will be adopted by joint
Resolution of the County and City, after receiving a recommendation from the Growth
Manage,mn orramittee. Said recommendation is to be formulated following a public
hearing th polio t:onducted by the Growth Management Committee.
Y', rfPAS5Ea j� 1r day of November, 1991.
SEA; t r, JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ATTES P. a 4
_� /f '•.,• D ar son, Chairman
I�/lta2 la GLrcr?
Lorna L. Delaney,
Clerk of the Board S
yr.. 2
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICY SUBJECT AREAS
a) Policies to define and implement RCW 3630A.116 (Urban Growth Areas
b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development of Urban Growth
Areas and the provision of urban services to such areas.
e) Policies for the siting of public capital facilities of a county -wide or state-
wide nature.
d) Policies for county -wide transportation facilities and strategies.
e) Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for
all economic segments of file population and parameters for its distribution.
f) Policies for joint County and City planning within urban growth areas.
g) Policies for county -wide economic development and employment.
h) Policies dealing with issues of "fair share."
i) Policies on consistency and coordination of Growth Management planning
activities and the delivery of governmental services.
j) An analysis of the fiscal impacts of policy options contained in the policy plan.
ATTEST:
David Grove, City Clerk
Brent Shirley, Mayor
vc_
it 13C
ATTACHEMENTS F
JEFFERSON COUNTY /CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of The Adoption } COUNTY RESOLUTION NO.128 =42
of County -wide Planning Policy } CITY RESOLUTION NO. z2
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A.210 R.C.W. (the Growth Management Act,
GMA) directs the county, in cooperation with its cities, to develop a County -wide
Planning Policy to be used as a policy framework from which county and city
comprehensive plans are to be developed and adopted; and
WHEREAS, by joint resolution (County Resolution No. 107 -91, City
Resolution No. 91 -90) Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend established a
Growth Management Committee to oversee the development of this policy; and
WHEREAS, the County and City have jointly developed this policy as a
foundation from which to judge consistency between County and City comprehensive
plans, and the requirements of GMA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the joint resolution, the Growth Management
Committee conducted, on September 21, 1992, a public hearing for the adoption of the
County -wide Planning Policy; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, and review and discussion of the
public testimony, the County -wide Planning Policy was revised by the Growth
Management Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Committee did, on November 24,
1992, conduct its final review of the County -wide Planning Policy, and by formal motion
recommends that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the City Council
of the City of Port Townsend jointly adopt these policies consistent with the
requirements of the GMA.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County-wide Planning
Policy, attached M Exhibit A, is hereby adopted by Jefferson County and the City of
Port Tow0sFPA, pursuant to the joint resolution and Chapter 36.70A.210 R.C.W.
(V APPROVED AND SIGNED this�day of_LV E� , 1992.
SEAL'.
ATTEST: "
Lorna L. Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
ATTEST:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A�n ison, Chairman
APPROVED AND SIGNED this �/�day of 1992.
roc_
�' 7