Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda 09-02-2015621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA Tri-Area Community Center September 2, 2015 6:30 pm OPENING BUSINESS Call to Order/Roll Call Approval of Agenda Staff Updates Commissioner Announcements 6:45 pm CHAIR/VICE CHAIR ELECTION 7:00 pm DISCUSSION Topic Speaker Page(s) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Review Chapters 1 & 2 Carl Smith, DCD Director See Comp Plan 8:00 pm OBSERVER COMMENT When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is: An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response; Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there’s time; Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record; May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit. 8:15 pm CLOSING BUSINESS Summary of today’s meeting Follow-up action items – Review Chapter 3 Agenda Items for October 7th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center 8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us ______________________________________________________________________________ SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Peterson, Associate Planner DATE: August 25, 2015 RE: Staff Update: Responses to Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Questions of August 5, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Background On Wednesday, August 5, 2015, I presented a summary of the Joint Land Use Study project to the Planning Commission. After that presentation we had a thorough Question/Answer session. However, there were questions raised for which I sought additional perspectives from project partners. Below, I have posted the questions and provided the opinions I received. Questions Regarding the state Growth Management Act requirement at 36.70A.530 - Land use development incompatible with military installation not allowed - Revision of comprehensive plans and development regulations: a) What if the Navy regarded a proposed comprehensive Plan or development regulation to be in conflict with the Navy's mission-can the Navy say "No" and stop the proposal? b) What must the Navy do to define a conflict with their mission? Is that entirely up to the Navy? c) Does the Navy have to disclose what the conflict is, or can it just be said that it's due to national security, and trump the proposed amendments by the County? d) If the Navy sees a conflict, what is the process by which the County and the Navy resolve the conflict? Does the Navy have carte blanche to define that there is a conflict? e) What power and recourse does each party have? Planning Commission Meeting 09/02/2015 Page 1 of 6 Joel Peterson, Associate Planner From my experience with the Growth Management Act, when an action is taken under GMA, the appeal process is to file a Petition for Review with the Growth Management Hearings Board. If a federal entity, such as the Navy, were to appeal a decision, they would use the same process. This is, in fact, the raison d’etre of the Joint Land Use Study. The study identifies potential conflicts between community goals and mission needs, and defines a process for collaborating, or at least coordinating outcomes for those issues. Keep in mind that the Growth Management Act says that ‘incompatibility is not allowed’ in the citation text, but uses the words “should” and “may” in the subsection. A lot of RCWs include the statement “Headings not Law” or something like that. The “shalls” refer to the procedural requirements of notification. Notes can sometimes be found at the bottom of the RCW which are taken from the original legislative session bill to clarify intent (as this code has). The Navy would follow due process defined under state law. If an impasse arose over proposed development regulations or comprehensive plan amendments, then the Navy would initiate a petition with the State Growth Management Hearings Board. Appeals then go to Superior Court, Court of Appeals, and finally State Supreme Court. See also Chapter 36.70C RCW – Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions. This outlines the process for appealing decisions when a party has been aggrieved. It comes from the Land Use Policy Act, or “LUPA”. You sometimes hear reference to “a LUPA appeal”. This kind of appeal begins in Superior Court. RCW 36.70A.530(3) “A comprehensive plan, amendment to a plan, a development regulation or amendment to a development regulation, should not allow development in the vicinity of a military installation that is incompatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. A city or county may find that an existing comprehensive plan or development regulations are compatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements.” GMA is a law that balances many goals. The JLUS planning process identifies ways of balancing interests. Planning Commission Meeting 09/02/2015 Page 2 of 6 Tyson Smith White & Smith, LLC | Planning and Law Group Charleston, South Carolina On Aug 12, 2015, at 5:32 PM, Joel Peterson <JPeterson@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: To: MAKERS (Bob, Julie & Tyson) Navy (Don, Lynn, Liane, & Shelia) Last Wednesday I presented a summary of the Joint Land Use Study project to the Planning Commission. I'm asking for your input on a line of questioning they asked, that I need to investigate and prepare a reply. Regarding the state Growth Management Act requirement at 36.70A.530 - Land use development incompatible with military installation not allowed - Revision of comprehensive plans and development regulations: First, I’d make the point that the statute is really one of coordination and cooperation. It is a common approach in a lot of states now, which appears to strike a balance (in the minds of the legislators) between protecting their states’ DoD facilities and protecting the powers of local government in the realm of land use decision-making. In the end, the military cannot trump local government powers. The thinking is just that at the very least the local government and military installation would benefit from identifying potential conflicts before they happen. What they decide to do about any identified conflicts, if anything, would be a product of their own discussions and cooperation. In short, it is a process that must occur, but the statute does not dictate a particular outcome in the event of an impasse between the local government and the installation. a) What if the Navy regarded a proposed comprehensive Plan or development regulation to be in conflict with the Navy's mission-can the Navy say "No" and stop the proposal? No, the statute simply gives the Navy the opportunity to comment. However, if the local government approved, say, a regulation that the Navy said created a conflict, then a factual question would arise of whether they have adopted a regulation that fails to comply with the statute. But the statute doesn’t require the local government to base its decision on the military’s response. b) What must the Navy do to define a conflict with their mission? The statute doesn’t say they must do anything in particular, though it does say the local government would include in its request from the commander “a written recommendation and supporting facts” as to their conclusions of a conflict if they make one. Is that entirely up to the Navy? Yes, under the statute, but, again, there’s the suggestion of there being supporting facts. But, to the point above, if the Navy concludes there is a conflict, that view is not forced on anyone else by the statute. Planning Commission Meeting 09/02/2015 Page 3 of 6 c) Does the Navy have to disclose what the conflict is, or can it just be said that it's due to national security, and trump the proposed amendments by the County? Not clear. The statute only “requires” that local government request written recommendation and supporting facts. It doesn’t require the Navy to provide it, unsurprisingly, though that is probably the intent or hope. Since the statute doesn’t allow the Navy to “trump” local government action, there is likely an incentive to be as forthcoming as those security concerns allow so that common ground/understanding can be reached with the local government. d) If the Navy sees a conflict, what is the process by which the County and the Navy resolve the conflict?the Navy have carte blanche to define that there is a conflict The statute doesn’t dictate much of a process after the original notice and response. You could define a specific process if you like, probably in an MOU, but it might be in an overlay ordinance as well. c) What power and recourse does each party have? It probably goes without saying now, but there is no recourse or appeal process in the statute. If you move forward just under the statute, its a political one and the implications of resolving a conflict or not would play out there. I suppose that since the statute requires local governments to adopt regs/plans that don’t allow incompatible development, failure of the local government to do so might be the basis of a separate lawsuit or administrative challenge, but without the statute saying what IS incompatible, it would be curious how the appellate body would decide who was right (to military or the local government). It’d be a question of fact. Note that some communities have tried to clarify some of your questions via MOU or ordinance, as to: •process •standards to guide a conflict determination •dispute resolution, so to speak. For example, in the case of airplane noise, the Navy has issued guidance on what land uses are compatible in various zones around the runway (see attached). An MOU could provide that an opinion of “conflict” would be based on that chart, with perhaps some discretion remaining, but now with some parameters anyway. Unfortunately, there isn’t such concrete guidance for the impacts in your case. Even, as we discussed before, something as basic as agreeing on what “adjacent” or “in the vicinity” means would help y’all clarify the scope of review and comment. Also, you could define the process in more detail. In a draft MOU I once even included an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) process, but I don’t believe it has been adopted. It would have triggered at some point the appointment of a mediator. But, in that case, I will say, the impacts were intense (loud planes) and there was a concern that if any conflict arose that it would be contentious as things were contentious at that time between the community and that base. Planning Commission Meeting 09/02/2015 Page 4 of 6 Lynn Wall, Assistant Regional Community Planning Liaison Officer Naval Facility Northwest The Navy’s approach is, overwhelmingly, to work with the communities in which we reside to find mutually acceptable solutions to issues we share, such as transportation, zoning, emergency services, oil spill response, law enforcement, firefighting, etc. In recent years, having become aware of how much land use planning can impact installations and create conflicts between residents and the our operations, the Navy has established a program (Compatibility and Readiness Sustainment) and hired staff to work with the local governments to ensure we are proactively coordinating, rather than reacting to something at a very late date. NRNW examples include hiring five Community Planning Liaison Officers, all of whom have been reaching out to planning staff and elected officials, and we have nominated (with prior concurrence of local governments) and funded efforts such as the JLUS, which can help ensure proactive cooperative and compatible planning. If the Navy were to view a particular section of the code as incompatible, hopefully we would be having conversations with the local government long before getting to the point of submitting a formal comment during a public comment phase of, for example, a SEPA document. We believe that by going through the JLUS process we have identified all the concerns that we might have, and have found ways to meet the desires of both the local government and the Navy to address these through future planning efforts Response: The Navy has a program to review development and evaluate impacts on its mission and operations. The evaluations take into account the activities of the local commands and evaluate these against current and future development scenarios to see if there might be potential for incompatibility. We provide as much information as possible to the local jurisdictions about what the compatibility issues are. The limitations to this communication may include not disclosing classified or protected information related to the assessment of impacts. In these instances more general discussion of the nature of the impact will be discussed with the local jurisdiction. In working on the JLUS, the issues related to land use planning or development that may affect our operations or installations have been identified for the local jurisdictions. Currently these are general areas of potential incompatibility and future individual projects would be evaluated Planning Commission Meeting 09/02/2015 Page 5 of 6 within these areas. Note that the RCW only applies to zoning and not individual projects and we would coordinate on these individual projects through your normal review process. We hope this provides greater clarity to the local jurisdictions about which issues may require future action and that the study has identified mutually acceptable strategies and recommendations to address these issues. If the Navy had a conflict with a proposed use, we would have a conversation with the local government and explain the issue. We will work to define any new issues or project specific compatibility concerns in coordination with local staff. Response: As noted in the response to b), yes, the Navy would do its own analysis of whether a proposed land use would impact our operations. From there we would have a conversation about it with the local government planners and officials. Neither the local governments, nor the Navy want to unintentionally create conflicts or impacts that lead to contentious and uncomfortable situations. We have not to date pursued any redress under this RCW anywhere in Washington State during the 11 years this RCW has been in place. The preferred method of action is to seek cooperative planning solutions. The RCW does not provide a direct means for the Navy to ‘trump” local decisions and in the event we have a compatibility issue we can’t resolve by mutual agreement then the process would likely proceed through the local jurisdictions administrative procedures, state Administrative Procedures Act, or other identified resolution methods. Response: First, nothing in the JLUS or the RCW gives then Navy any direct power over local land use decisions. The local governments will make these decisions. The RCW requires that the local jurisdiction consult with the Navy and that this input be considered. While the Navy has never sought recourse under this RCW and the process is not clearly articulated in the regulation. One may expect that in the unlikely event we were not able to reach a mutually acceptable land use planning scenario; we would default to the processes laid out in the Washington State Administrative Procedures Act, as adopted into local Administrative Procedures, SEPA and development regulations. Then this may proceed to standing, appeals processes and it would ultimately be decided in the courts. The goal is to never get to that point. Planning Commission Meeting 09/02/2015 Page 6 of 6