Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM022502District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tittemess District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of February 25, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Dan Titterness were both present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of the weeks of January 22 and 28, 2002 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CO UNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles Saddler reported that an Outreach Committee of the Budget/Management Team has been established to develop strategies to help increase public awareness of issues facing the County. He reviewed feedback he received regarding the Commissioners' meetings: * Tuesdays FAX is a good tool because it summarizes what happened at the Board meeting. * Sometimes the Commissioners final vote on a matter is anti-climatic. * How an individual Commissioner voted on a motion isn't always clear. * Sometimes the Board's motions aren't clear. * The Board asks citizens to state their name and address before they make a public comment and it was suggested that the person should also say the community where they live. * The County Administrator Briefing needs to be structured so the public and press can decide if topics they are interested in are being discussed. A suggestion was made to incorporate scheduled topics. * Why don't the Commissioners get photographs of their meetings on the front page of The Leader? * Have the Commissioners thought about televising their meetings? If the meetings are televised, the meeting format will need to be restructured. The County is not a member of the PEG Board and doesn't have time on PTTV. Commissioner Titterness noted that he supports moving toward televised meetings. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 Chairman Wojt asked when the Board plans to do the County Administrator's annual performance evaluation? Charles Saddler answered that he is due for an evaluation on March 1. He has put together a draft document that addresses items reviewed by the Board during the last evaluation, as well as other issues that have been brought up, and accomplishments during the past year. Chairman Wojt stated that the concern regarding "top heavy" administration can also be addressed during the review. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The position of County Administrator is important to the operations of the County and is more important today than it was when it was implemented; the County Administrator position should be fully supported by the Commissioners; regarding the OEC/Shine Community Action Council lawsuit, the petitioners want clear lines of communication with the County and they feel it is premature to commit to future negotiations during the 30 day appeal period on the Hearings Board order; the petitioners have identified several items they would like the County to consider before mediation is discussed (see document submitted) and the Board advised that Charles Saddler will be the contact point for this issue; why is the bid for asphalt being awarded to Lakeside Industries when they are not in compliance with the County's regulations?; (The Board asked for information on the status of the Lakeside asphalt batch planO; for 12 years the Lakeside Industries Cape George batch plant has been an issue and they were told to come into full compliance last summer; when will they be made to come into full compliance?; revenues for the County and State are down and the County needs to encourage projects that will increase revenues right now; the Washington Public Ports Association has developed a handbook for Port Commissioners and staff members to clarify the permitting process; support for the position of County Administrator; there isn't a need for two Deputy Administrators in a County this size; the need for maintenance of West Island View Road near Kala Point; the County has an aging population and needs to look at how this will affect the future; the County needs to encourage young people who want to live here after they graduate from school, but they need living wage jobs and affordable housing. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item 5 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming 2002 as the Year to Celebrate a Century of 4-H and Youth Development in Jefferson County 2. RESOLUTION NO. 13-02 re: Indefinite Closure of Anderson Street, County Road No. 663209; Irondale Road Improvement Project #CR1107 3. RESOLUTION NO. 14-02 re: Annual Re-establishment of Petty Cash, Cash Drawers and Revolving Checking Accounts Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Assessment, Intervention, Education and Specialized Therapy for Infants and Pre-school Children Suspected of Having a Developmental Delay or Disability (Birth to Three); Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Port Townsend School District DELETE Bid Award re: 2002 Vendor Supply of Asphalt Concrete for Various County Road Maintenance Projects; Lakeside Industries (See item later in Minutes.) Final Plat Approval, #SUB00-0006; Revising Ludlow Point Village Division 4 to Correct Ownership Information and Create and Record an Accurate Public Record; Lander Custom Homes, Applicant Request for Proposals (RFP) re: Central Financial Systems Replacement Program; Proposals will be Received Until 5:00 p.m., Monday, May 6, 2002 at the Office of Central Services Request to Use One (1) of Jefferson County's Allocated Days for McCurdy Pavilion; Wooden Boat Festival Fundraiser, Friday, September 6, 2002; UpWest Arts in Association with the Wooden Boat Foundation Letter Requesting Loan Payment; Jefferson County Housing Authority Discussion and Report From Fee Review Advisory Board: The Fee Review Advisory Board has not had a chance to review the final report yet. Staff will provide assistance to make this information available to the Commissioners for the March 11, 2002 agenda. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION from 10:30-11:59 a.m. with the Deputy Prosecutor, County Administrator, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, County Engineer and Public Works Project Manager regarding real estate negotiations. Real Estate Purchase Proposal: 40 Acres of Property Located at the Northwest Corner of the SR19 and Highway 104 Intersection; Olympic Property Group (OPG), Owner: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete bullets 3, 4 and 11 from this proposal and to include a request that the County receive a response from Olympic Property Group withinl 0 days. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the UDC to Address Major Industrial Developments (MIDs): Associate Planner Josh Peters explained that the MID topic was first brought up at a Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting in November, 2000. Staff from City of Port Townsend and Department of Community Development worked together in 2001 to develop draft language for the UDC and an interlocal agreement between the two jurisdictions. The County Commissioners held a Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 public hearing on the draft ordinance on December 11,2001. The documents were reviewed at a Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting on February 6, 2002. Legal Counsel for the City and the County revised the interlocal agreement to reflect discussions from that meeting. In addition, there were some revisions to the UDC language. Josh Peters distributed a revised document to the Board. He explained that it is similar to the document dated January 16 except for a few changes suggested by Jeff Randall, City Planning Manager. Josh Peters reviewed these changes. He noted that the County received a letter today from City Attorney John Watts with additional recommended revisions. Chairman Wojt asked if the draft interlocal agreement represents what was agreed upon at the last JGMSC meeting? Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez answered that he thinks the interlocal agreement reflects what the parties want. Commissioner Titterness stated that, regarding the UDC, he is anxious to accommodate the City if possible. He doesn't like the suggested language "average urban development." He asked staff for alternative language. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the Board hear public comments before they revise the language. Jeff Randall, City Planning Manager, explained that he made some formatting suggestions and John Watts made a suggestion to provide clarity to the "employment per acre" issue. This comment is meant to encourage positive economic development in the County. He appreciates that the City Council and the County Commissioners worked together on this document. The Chair opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, stated that she doesn't agree with the "jobs per acre" issue. It seems meaningless to set the value of evaluation for jobs per acre by saying that it shall be what is typical of the industry if the industry that is being approved doesn't have a high ratio. That language doesn't advise anything in terms of economic development. She submitted and read her other comments regarding the approval process. (See permanent record.) Tom McNerney, Brinnon, stated that there is no way to know the types of industry that will be proposed, and therefore, it seems vague to try to guess the number of employees per acre that would be appropriate for a particular industry. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 Freida Fenn., Port Townsend, speaking for herself as a City Council member, stated that changes in the number of employees per acre can occur depending on the type of industry and technological breakthroughs. There are industry organizations that have current data available. Any specific numbers listed in the ordinance may change and have to be revised. City Attorney John Watts' suggestion about encouraging an "urban industrial level" would cover industry standards in general without listing specific numbers. This seems more appropriate for the encouraging economic development. Hearing no further comment, the Chair closed the public comment portion of the hearing. To explain a point regarding the number of employees per acre issue, Charles Saddler used an example of a 50 acre pharmaceutical plant that would employ five people per acre. Staff comments and suggested language allow an industry average of seven employees per acre and, depending on the design of the plant, they could get by with fewer employees. Using John Watt's suggested language, the project could not be approved becausel 8 employees per acre would be required. Charles Saddler feels that there is a considerable difference between "levels of urban industrial development" and specific industry standards. Chairman Wojt pointed out that the original intent was to keep the agreement as simple as possible. Any proposal will still be required to go through all the phases of developmental review, including environmental review. Commissioner Huntingford asked about the 40 acre threshold amount in the City. There is limited industrial land designated in the County and this means that any proposals under 40 acres will be required to go through the normal process which can take up to two years. The County needs to go a step further and designate additional industrial land that will encourage projects that require less than 40 acres to locate outside the City. Commissioner Titterness agreed that there will be additional zoning work for both the County and the City. Commissioner Titterness is in support of moving forward with the current language in the draft ordinance, although he asked that the Board review the changes that the City Attorney has suggested. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he also agrees with the current language. The Board then reviewed each of the specific suggested language changes in John Watt's letter and indicated which changes they felt should be made to the language in the ordinance. After a brief explanation from a constituent, the Board agreed to hear her public testimony. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 Michelle Sandoval, stated that the UDC says the development agreement will go to the Board of Commissioners for approval and not to the Hearing Examiner. The process needs to be clarified. At the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee, Commissioner Titterness brought up reviewing the MID process after five proposals or in five years. She does not remember much discussion on this and urged the Board to reconsider and reduce the number of proposals. When the Board finished their review, Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the hearing notice that was published stated that the hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 25 at 2 p.m. and comments will be accepted until Tuesday, February 25 at 5 p.m. The Board agreed that this is a typographical error and they will not take testimony after the hearing today. Charles Saddler suggested that staff make the changes to the draft ordinance that the Board agreed on and bring the revised ordinance back to the Board before close of business today. Later in the Day: Josh Peters submitted a revised ordinance that included the changes that the Board suggested during the public hearing. He reviewed the changes. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt an ordinance amending the UDC to address major industrial developments (MIDs) and to require a development agreement for all projects that meet the criteria. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See Minutes of March 11, 2002 for Ordinance No. 02-0311-02.) Discussion re: Major Industrial Development (MID) Agreement: David Alvarez reported that last week he made two changes to the interlocal agreement. The City Attorney reviewed and accepted the revisions. Commissioner Titterness noted that he has concerns about the language regarding MIDs that are less than 40 acres. Charles Saddler pointed out that any project under 40 acres is not considered a MID. Commissioner Titterness asked to delete the language regarding MID pre-application requirements that states that any applicant for an industrial project less than 40 acres must begin the siting process by meeting with the City's BCD Department. It was agreed that this sentence be removed. Commissioner Titterness added that if the County and City do not agree on a proposal and cannot agree on an arbitrator, the interlocal agreement states that arbitrators will be appointed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The County's position has been consistent that the arbitrator be appointed by the presiding Superior Court Judge. Jeff Randall said that he does not have a problem about removing the sentence. Commissioner Titterness added that there is a typographical error in Section 5, changing the word from "for" to "from." Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and adopt the interlocal agreement for processing applications for major industrial developments (MIDs) in Jefferson County as amended. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Glen Cove LAMIRD: Charles Saddler explained that the Board had directed staff to pursue the option of an expanded LAMIRD in the Glen Cove area. DCD staff, a County Commissioner, and the Chair of the Planning Commission met as a committee to address the logical outer boundaries for an expanded LAMIRD and make a recommendation to the Board. Director of Community Development A1 Scalfreported that a boundary change can be done as an interim control or an official control by statute. Interim controls can be adopted without a public hearing, but a hearing has to be scheduled within 60 days of adoption and findings of fact justifying the action are required. Interim controls are effective for no more than six months; but may be effective for up to one year if a workplan is developed for related studies. Associate Planner Randy Kline stated that the committee's recommendation is for the Board to schedule a public hearing to solicit input from the public on the Glen Cove Boundary. DCD staff recommends that the hearing be scheduled for March 18. The Glen Cove boundary analysis and proposed boundary will be available for the Board and the public the first week in March. Chairman Titterness asked to see the map showing the PUGA boundaries and new boundaries created by the infrastructure overlays. Randy Kline and the Board reviewed the map. Charles Saddler noted that the committee recommended that all the properties in the expanded boundaries be zoned strictly light industrial with no associated commercial activities. Commissioner Titterness stated that he was on the committee and their recommendation included moving forward with a public hearing and then adopting the boundaries. He now feels that the Board needs to adopt the boundaries today and then schedule a public hearing as staff recommended. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt as interim boundaries the committee's proposed boundaries for the Glen Cove area and to schedule a public hearing within the next 60 days. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. After added discussion about the timing of the adoption of the boundaries and the public hearing, the Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion and Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion failed. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct staff to advertise the public hearing on the expanded LAMIRD boundaries for March 11, 2002. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. After a brief discussion on the timing of the advertisement and information that will need to be made available for public review, the Deputy Prosecutor recommended that the hearing be scheduled for March 18. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 2002 ~ After more discussion, Commissioner Titterness amended the motion to advertise the public hearing for March 18, 2002. Commissioner Huntingford accepted the amended motion which carded by a unanimous vote. Bid Award re: 2002 Vendor Supply of Asphalt Concrete for Various County Road Maintenance Projects; Lakeside Industries: (Item #5 on the Consent Agenda) A1 Scalf, Community Development Director, advised the Board that the Lakeside Industries Asphalt Batch Plant is substantially in compliance with County regulations. Commissioner Tittemess moved to approve the bid award as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. The Board recessed their regular meeting at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened the meeting on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. All three Board members were present for the following: 10:00 to 10:45 a.m. Executive Session with the County Administrator, the Director of Community Development, and the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding litigation. 10:45 to 11:00 a.m. Executive Session with the County Administrator, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Natural Resource Manager regarding litigation. 11:00 to 11:30 a.m. Executive Session with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding a personnel matter. 11:30 to Noon Executive Session regarding personnel. The Board recessed the meeting at the conclusion of the scheduled business on Tuesday and reconvened the meeting on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. All three Board members were present for an update from DNR reg~i~ng'Mdtg~MatsQuarry. MEETING SEAL ATTEST: ' Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY · -~'Rich~Ojt, ~'-ai~/-- Dan Titterness, Member Page 8 To: From: Date: RE: FILE COPY Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Mr. Charles Saddler, County Administrator Mr. David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Colette M. Kostelec, Representative for Petitioners O}~ February 25, 2002 Olympic Environmental Council and Shine Community Action Council v. Jefferson County FEB 2 5 2002 The Petitioners on this case appreciate the opportunity to clarify several things today. First, both Petitioners on this case would like to confirm that all communication regarding this case should still come through me, as I am still acting as their representative. Petitioners would also appreciate getting written clarification as to who is acting as the County's representative at this point, so that we know with whom we should be in communication. Clarification as to lines of communication will help prevent the confusion that can result through random contact between different parties. Second, the Petitioners would like to clarify their position with respect to the Option 4 regarding mediation between the County and the Petitioners, which was presented at the BOCC workshop on February 4, 2002. As they have stated many times, the Petitioners have been consistently willing to negotiate with the County on the issues raised in this case. However, until the current 30-day appeal period is past, Petitioners feel that it is premature for them to commit to any future negotiations. Assuming that no appeals are filed, and given the 180-day time frame for the County to comply with the Hearings Board Final Decision and Order ("FDO"), it is important for the County to prepare a schedule that allocates time for initial staff work, negotiations with Petitioners, Planning Commission review and BOCC review/approval. With this, the Petitioners will have a better sense of how much of a time commitment the County is expecting of them. The Petitioners would like any future negotiations to begin with the County acknowledging its desire to achieve compliance with respect to groundwater protection so that the Petitioners know that the County is in fact acting in good faith by engaging Petitioners in further discussions. Given the County's often-stated budgetary and other constraints, and given all of the time and effort that the Petitioners have spent on this case already, Petitioners feel that it is the County's responsibility at this point to present to the Petitioners some draft code language for consideration. Petitioners have already provided considerable documentation as to their position on this case. County staff or consultants working on compliance with the FDO should become familiar with all of that background, so that the parties are not starting from ground zero in any future negotiations. After reviewing the County's draft code language, the Petitioners are willing to present the County with their position as to if they think the draft would pass in terms of compliance with the FDO or whether changes would be needed for them to reach that conclusion and if so, what the scope of such changes would be. The County may then request that a mediator be used to help work out any changes. At that time, Petitioners would be willing to discuss the selection of that mediator, given that the Petitioners feel that it should be someone who has or will develop an understanding of the facts of the case, be familiar with the GMA, and possess a technical background with respect to groundwater. Finally, the Petitioners would like to make it very clear, as they have stated many times over in their arguments in this case, that they believe the County has many options available for developing a compliance strategy. The Petitioners feel that it is important for the County to: 1) decide what it CAN do within the constraints of the FDO and GMA, the County budget and other pressures, 2) turn that into code language (in other words, say that the County WILL do those things), and 3) ensure that there are the resources available to actually DO them. The Petitioners have no interest in seeing the County agree to things that it has no intention of doing. We have been down that road before, and don't want to repeat past mistakes. Thank you for allowing this time for the Petitioners to clarify these issues. February 25, 2002 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners FILE COPY Re: Major Industrial Development text changes to UDC Commissioners: During the County/City negotiations for the Intedocal Agreement for siting MID's, there has been a persistent attempt to treat a MID as if it were a project application rather than a rezone for a new UGA. Regulatory project timelines do not apply to rezones, even those occurring outside the normal Comp Plan amendment cycle. This confusion has carried over into the UDC regulations for MID approvals. The RCW 36.70A.365 refers to a MID as "a Master Planned Location". Our UDC Table 8.1 identifies a Master Plan for Master Planned Resorts as a Type V decision, and Table 8-2 describes Type V's as Legislative decisions. I think that same Type V legislative process should be used for MID approvals, rather than the quasi-judicial/legislative hybrid with the Hearings Examiner that is currently in the draft UDC amendment. If the Board wanted to consider an additional opinion from the Hearings Examiner regarding a MID application that could be of great assistance to you, but I think throughout the process, the political responsibility for any MID approvals should clearly rest on the shoulders on the Board. That is my own personal opinion. Others feel that a Hearings Examiner will yield a better decision than leaving it with the Board, but I disagree for a number of reasons. I think if you had full responsibility you would be more cognizant of the long-term benefits or harmful effects to our county. Under a legislative process, there would no fear of an "arbritrary and capricious" appeal that exists with a quasi-judicial approval process. Your amended growth management indicator in UDC 9.5.4.b.5 requires that an inquiry into: "whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Visions Statement." In this theoretical reassessment, I would remind you and the Planning Commission that during the Jefferson 2000 Survey which forms the basis of the County's Vision Statement, county residents were asked which specific economic activities should be either strongly encouraged or strongly discouraged by local government policies. 54% of the 517 residents in the area- proportionate control group said large-scale industries should be strongly discouraged, and only 8% said they should be strongly encouraged. Of the 992 random respondents chosen in the survey, the opposition was higher: 68% said they wanted government to strongly discourage development of large-scale industries and only 6% said they felt government policies should strongly encourage large-scale industries. MID's were not a part of GMA when that survey was conducted in 1991 at the beginning the County's GMA planning, but I think the results are still applicable, since obviously MID's will probably be large-scale industrial developments. If the Board is confident that a survey done today would generate a Growth Management Indicator of broad support for MID's, then the Board should likewise have the political confidence to create MID's legislatively and let the political chips fall where they may if a bad MID is approved. The MID's option is now sanctioned under GMA, and a MID could be a good thing or a bad thing for Jefferson County depending on where and how it is sited and its impacts, but regardless, MID approval should not be a decision that is essentially made by a Hearings Examiner. Nancy Dorgan 2137 Washington St. #7 Port Townsend WA JEFFERSON COUNTY "~/ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend, Washington 98368 ' 380/379-4450. 800/831-2878 · 360/379-44§1 Fax Memorandum To: Frorn~ CC: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Charles Saddler, County Administrator David AIv~rv..e~z, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) IttJ Al Sca~or, and Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner City of Port Townsend Date: February 25, 2002 Re: Amendments to the January 16, 2002 version of the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.8 concerning major industrial developments (MIDs) ATTACHED TO THIS MEMORANDUM ARE ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ESTABLISHING A PROCESS BY WHICH MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD BE APPROVED OUTSIDE OF URBAN GROWTH AREAS, The attached proposed amendments by UDC section are identical to those before the BOCC in late January and dated January 16, 2002, except for suggested changes to the proposed UDC Section 3.8 on MIDs that implement the policies discussed at the February 6, 2002 Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting and subsequently negotiated and finalized through County and City adminis-~tion. On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, Chief Civil DPA Alvarez and County Administrator Saddler presented to the BOCC the working draft of the Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City regarding MIDs. Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Saddler also informed the BOCC about specific changes that the City suggested for the proposed UDC Section 3.8. The changes included in the attached version of UDC 3.8 consist of language suggested by the City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development Department Director Jeff Randall. Mr. Randall responded promptly to a request from this Department for assistance in crafting the new language. In his email correspondence to this Depa.rtment last Friday, Mr. Randall pointed out that the suggestions were his own and were not to be construed as approval from the City government. The intent of the suggested language is to implement the policy agreements of the County and City legislators. With that in mind, barring any testimony to the contrary at today's public hearing before the BOCC, it can be assumed that City officials are comfortable with the attached language. DPA AIvarez has reviewed the suggested changes to the proposed UDC Section 3.8. Our analysis of the timing of events is that the BOCC may take action today on the UDC amendments and the Interlocal Agreement. If the BOCC were to take action on the proposed UDC amendments and the Intedocal Agreement today, the City Council would then need to ratify the Interlocal Agreement before it takes effect. Consult DPA Alvarez for specific legal direction. JEFFERSON COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS SECTION 3: LAND USE DISTRICTS SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION 8: PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/SEPA IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 9: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS PROPOSED LINE-IN/LINE-OUT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS Prepared by the Department of Community Development as requested by the Board of County Commissioners at the conclusion of the public hearing held in the Chambers on December 11, 2001. Major Industrial Development . A master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a) requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. A major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multitenant office parks. (cf. RCW 36.70A.365(1)) PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE This version of UDC Section 3.8, dated February 25, 2002, includes changes to the January 16, 2002 version, as suggested by City of Port Townsend staff in order to implement the policies discussed at the February 6, 2002 Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting and subsequently negotiated and finalized through County and City administration. SECTION 3: LAND USE DISTRICTS 3.8 Major Industrial Development 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to establish a process for reviewing and approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major industrial developments outside urban growth, areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365 and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. "Major industrial development" means a master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a) requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multitenant office parks., 2. Application Requirements and Approval Process. Major industrial development applications shall be processed as Type III conditional use permits under this Code, requiring an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Additionally, a development agreement between the County and the applicant (and other parties, as necessary) is a mandatory element of a major industrial development application and shall be processed per Section 8.11. The open record public hearing before the Hearing~xaminer shall, in an effort to consolidate the application review process, serve as the public hearing required before approval of a Type III permit and before adoption of a development agreement via ordinance or resolution. RCW 36.70A.365(3) states that final approval of a major industrial development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. If an application for a major industrial development in Jefferson County is approved as a conditional use by the Hearing Examiner, the conditional use approval in combination with the required Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the development agreement via ordinance or resolution shall be considered "final approval," the result of which shall amend the Comprohensiye/='/an/_and Uso Map. Final approval of an application for a major industrial development and the corresponding amendment to the land use map shall not be considered an amendment to the Comprehensive P/an for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. Section 9.4 of this Code, the standard process for amending the Comprehens/vo P/an, does not apply. 3. Approval Criteria. A major industrial development may be approved outside an urban growth area in Jefferson County under this section if the following criteria are February 25, 2002 Proposed UDC 3.8 I met, in addition to other applicable regulations of this Code not specifically referenced herein: The proposal must require for operation forty (40) or more acres, including acreage for required buffers; The proposal satisfies all the conditional use approval criteria fer al! conditional uses listed in UDC 8.8.5r-,; ;.,.4,,,4; ...... ;,4"'-*;"'~' ~'~ theWhen reviewinq the proiect's "merit and value for the community as a whole," ~t,~ ~v,,~,~ ~, ~,,v ~,,~,~,, ~v~,,~ ~,,,~,~,,~,,~,.~ , ,~,, ~.~.~ .... ~ ~ ..... used), per UDC 8.8.5(10) consideration shall be given to the number of iobs created. The number of lobs per net acre of development, not includin~ the required buffers, shall bo ~p~cal for tho Wpo of indust~ proposed. ii. ac,~l--t~When analyzing the potential "neqative effects" and ,,,..,.,.~oti,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,~,,v,. effects ,.,f - -- --I-,~.-,~-~ ,,,--j~, ,,,~.,,~, ~v~,,.,i,.,,,,~,,.~ ~-~.~-~,°'a' ....... ,.~ .... ~ .... /,s~mflar actions Jn the area," per UDC 8.8.5(12), consi0eration shall be .qiven to lbo number and relative locations of maior in0ustdal developments permitted in ,Jefferson County and their subsequent or anticipated impacts; development agreement is included in the application pursuant to UDC 8.11; e-~d. New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid; Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are approved and implemented and the general development standards related to traffic as contained in UDC 6.2.5 are met; Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent non-urban areas and managed according to an approved Landscape Plan, per UDC 6.13 Landscaping/Screening, except that buffers for major industrial developments shall be fifty (50) feet of Screen-B landscaping for road frontages and 100 (one hundred) feet of Screen-A landscaping for interior lot lines along any portion adjacent to a non-urban area, including rural residential districts and designated resource lands, except as may be varied by the Administrator under 6.13.2.b; f~q.. Bulk and dimensional standards for major industrial development urban growth areas are satisfied pursuant to Table 6-1 of this Code; Environmental protection including noise, air and water quality has been addressed and provided for, per requirements of this Code (UDC 3.6.4 et seq. and other applicable sections) and other mitigative February 25, 2002 Proposed UDC 3.8 2 m measures as appropriate through review under the State Environmental Policy Act per chapter 43.21C RCW and UDC 8.10; Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands via interior lot lines buffers per 3.8.3.c above and other case- or site-specific measures as determined through State Environmental Policy Act review; The plan for the major industrial development is consistent with the provisions to protect environmentally sensitive areas as presented in Section 3.6.4 et seq. of this Code; Appropriate and suitable measures are established for the environmental remediation and/or restoration of the site in the case of future abandonment of the industrial or commercial operation, as determined through environmental review of the application and commensurate with the impacts of the specific use permitted; __If phasing of development (per 3.8.6.a below) is contemplated by the applicant, the overall project plan, including general timelines for construction but illustrating building footprints and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted with future building permit applications, must be presented in the original application such that the overall plan is established through the conditional use permit and/or a development agreement; and Bm. For major industrial development applications made pursuant to 3.8.1(a), above, the County has determined and entered findings that land suitable to site the major industrial development is unavailable within the urban growth area according to the current inventory of developable land within urban growth areas. Priority shall be given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to the '~ urban growth area. For applications under 3.8.1(a) or (b), the County must also find that the proposal is appropriately defined as a major . industrial development .and should not be more appropriately categorized as some other type of land use application. The Approving Authority may use discretion in considering specific major industrial developments proposed for specific land use districts based on the nature of the proposed use and activity. C;onditional Use Requirements. Major industrial developments shall comply with UDC 8.8 Conditional Uses, including provisions on the use of the property before the final decision (8.8.7), the effective period of th.e permit and the expiration (8.8.8), modification to the permit (8.8.9), the validity of the permit when there is change in ownership of the land (8.8.10), permit suspension or revocation (8.8.11 ), and the requirement of an assurance device and/or additional conditions at County discretion (8.8.12 and 8.8.6). Final Approval. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365(3), final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. The urban growth area associated with a major February 25, 2002 Proposed UDC 3.8 3 industrial development shall be a limited urban growth area intended for the specific major industrial development and not to absorb future population and other goals of mixed-use urban growth areas. A decision of approval by the Hearing Examiner regarding the conditional use permit, in combination with the Board of County Commissioners' adoption via ordinance of the associated development agreement, shall be considered "final approval." Final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. Phasing of Development, Expansion, Future Use of Land, Abandonment of Site, and Reverting to Previous Land Use District. a. The County recognizes that economic and other considerations may necessitate that business plans for a major industrial development be characterized by phasing of development (i.e., a portion of the overall site plan is constructed first, followed at a later date by the next portion or rest of the site plan, depending on economic and other factors). The major industrial development urban growth area established in the original application process would delineate the overall site plan. For phasing of development to be approvable, the overall project plan, including general timelines for construction but illustrating building footprints and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted with future building permit applications, must be presented in the original application. Per UDC 8.8.8, the proponent must file for the building permits or other necessary permits associated with the first phase of the development within three (3) years of the effective date of the conditional use permit, unless the permit approval provides for a greater period of time. b. Expansion of the major industrial development beyond the boundaries of the original site plan and established urban growth area would require the full permit approval process described in this section of the Code. ~. Future use of the land is determined and bound by the original application and development agreement. Per UDC 8.8.10, no other use is allowed without approval of an additional conditional use permit. A future application for a major industrial development that utilizes the same land area within the previously established urban growth area is approvable if the required Code and statutory criteria are met. Final legislative approval following conditional use approval would be unnecessary in this case, as the urban growth area is already established on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. If the dimensions Of the urban growth area must be modified, that process would be undertaken pursuant to UDC 9.4. d. The owners of land zoned and used for major industrial development and/or the conditional use permittee and/or other entity as appropriate for particular circumstances shall be responsible for appropriate and suitable environmental remediation and/or restoration of the site in the case of abandonment of the industrial or commercial operation. The responsible part shall be identified in the development agreement and/or conditional use permit. The responsibility for appropriate and suitable environmental remediation and/or restoration will be ]%brua?y 25, 2002 Proposed UDC 3.8 4 determined through environmental review of the application and commensurate with the impacts of the specific use permitted. An environmental remediation and/or restoration plan shall be established in the development agreement and/or conditional use permit approval. e. Under certain circumstances, it may be deemed appropriate by the County that the major industrial development urban growth area, or a portion thereof, revert to the previous land use district, or in rare cases change to another land use district. A change to the Comprehensive Plan land use map shall be considered as a Comprehensive Plan amendment application during the annual amendment cycle as governed in Section 9 of this Code. Urban Growth in AdjaCent Nonurban Areas. RCW 36.70A requires that development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in nonurban areas adjacent to major industrial developments. Jefferson County rural land use districts are characterized by rural densities (i.e., one dwelling unit per five or more acres for rural residential and less dense for resource lands). In order to ensure that these controls remain effective, it should be noted that proximity to a major industrial development urban growth area shall not provide a basis for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use district for property adjacent to a major industrial development to a land use district with greater development density or more intensive uses. Re-authorizatiOn of UDC 3.8 after initial period of implementation. In order to ensure that the standards contained in Section 3.8, as applied to applications for major industrial developments, result in acceptable and desirable impacts to the physical and cultural landscape of Jefferson County, the County Commissioners shall, upon the occurrence of five approved major industrial developments or the passage of five years from the date this section was adopted, whichever occurs first, hold a public hearing and take action to reauthorize, modify, suspend or delete Section 3.8 of the UDC. Any amendments for the UDC proposed by the County Commissioners as a result of that public hearing shall be processed pursuant to Section~9 of the UDC. February 25, 2002 Proposed UDC 3.8 5 4. Project Permit Application Framework. TABLE 8-1: PERMITS - DECISIONS Type I~ Type II Type III Type IV Type V Allowed uses not requiring Classification of unnamed and Reasonable economic use variances Final plats under Special use permits under notice of application discretionary uses under Section under Section 3.6.4(h) Section 7 Section 3.3.5 (e.g., "yes" uses listed in Table 3.2 3-1, building Permits, etc.) Minor amendments to planned Release of six-year FPA PRRDs under Section 3.6.13 and Final PRRDs under Jefferson'County rural residential developments moratorium for an individual major amendments to PRRDs Section 3.6.13 Comprehensive Plan (PRRDs) under Section single-family residence under under Section 3.6.13.15(c) amendments under Section 9 3.6.13.15 Section 4.16 Home businesses approved Cottage industries under Section Shoreline substantial development Amendments to development under Section 4.20 4.17 Permits for secondary uses, and regulations including conditional and variance permits amendments to this IJDC and raider the Jefferson County the Land Use Districts Map Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Tempora~ outdoor use Short subdivisions under Section Plat alterations and vacations under Amendments to the Jefferson Permits under Section 4.38 7.4 Section 7.1.3(d) County SMP Stormwater management Binding site plans under Section Long subdivisions under Subarea and utility plans and permits under Section 6.7 7.5 Section 7.5 amendments thereto Road access permits under Administrative conditional use Discretionary conditional use Development Agreements Section 6.8 permits under Section 8.8.4(a) permits under Section 8.8.4Co) [i.e., and amendments thereto [i.e., listed in Table 3-1 as "C(a)"] listed in Table 3-1 as "C(d)"] under Section 8.11 Sign Permits under Section Discretionary conditional use Conditional use permits under 6.15 permits under Section 8.8.4(b) Section 8.8.4(c) (i.e., uses listed in [i.e., listed in Table 3-1 as "C(d)"] Table 3-1 as "C") BoundaD, line adjustments Minor variances under Section Major variances under Section under Section 7.2 8.9.4(a) 8.9.4(10) Minor adjnstments to approved Shorelinesubstantialdevelopment Wireless Telecommunications preliminary short plats under permits for primary uses under Permits under Section 4.13 and Section 7.3.7 Jefferson County SMP Ordinance 06-0712-99 Minor amendmenls to Wireless Telecommunications Major industrial development approved preliminary long Permits under Section 4.13 and conditional use approval under ~lats under Section 7.4.8 Ordinance 06-0712-99 Section 3.8 Site plan approval advance determinations under Section 8.7 ~ Exemptions under the Jefferson County SMP Revisions to permits issued under the Jefferson County SMP Purpose. This Section establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B. 170. A decision to enter into a development agreement shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement may be appropriate for large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not contemplated by existing development regulations or existing application procedures. Development Agreements - General Requirements. a. Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the County. bo Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the County shall be parties to a development agreement, provided that if a proposed development is within an adopted municipal UGA, the applicable town or city shall also be a party to the agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party beneficiaries and utility service providers. Co Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other conditions that shall apply to and govern the development, use and mitigation of the property subject to the agreement. When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project permits for development of the property. Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code, except in the case of a Master Planned Resort (which requires a Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Section 3.6.4 et. seq. may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement. Development Standards to be Addressed in Development Agreements. A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more of any of the following types of development controls and conditions: (1) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential and non-residential densities, scale and intensity of uses and/or building sizes; (2) Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements pursuant to environmental review under RCW 43.21; (3) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, screening and landscaping and other development features; (4) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure requirements; (5) Affordable housing; (6) Recreational uses and open space preservation; (7) Phasing; (8) Development review procedures, processes, and standards for implementing decisions, including methods of reimbursement to the county for review processes; (9) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures. A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities. c. Development agreements shall: ao (1) Establish a process for amending the agreement; (2). Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires; (3) Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and (4) l~eserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. Procedures. A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the property owner to the Administrator of the Department of Community Development. The request should describe the project and the specific reasons why the project is suitable for a development~ agreement. The request should identify the development standards set forth in Section 8.11.3 that the applicant is requesting be included in the development agreement and any other reasonable information requested by the County. If the Administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development agreement should be considered by the County, the property owner shall be so informed, except that development agreements shall be required for the approval of Master Planned Resorts in accordance with Section 3.4.3.b of the UDC and for the e approval of major industrial developments in accordance with Section 3.8.2 of the UDC. When a development agreement is being considered prior to project permit approvals, the property owner shall prOvide the County with the same information that would be required for a complete application for such project permits in order for the County to determine the development standards and conditions to be included in the development agreement. do When a development agreement is being considered following approval of project permits, the development standards and other conditions set forth in such project permits shall be used in the development agreement without modification. The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public heating. The Board of County Commissioners may, in its sole discretion, approve the development agreement. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of RCW 36.70C shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement. f. An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the County Auditor. Effect of Development Agreement. A development agreement is binding on the parties ~and their successors, including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property subject to the development agreement. b. A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the affteement. Co A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or that part of the development specified in the agreement and may not, unless otherwise agreed to in the development agreement, be subject to an amendment to a local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. d. Permits issued by the County after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent with the agreement. Nothing in RCW 36.70B. 170 through 36.70B.200 and Section 501, Ch. 374, Laws of 1995 or this chapter is intended to authorize the County to impose impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any other financial contributions or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions of state law. 9.1 Amendments ~ Purpose and Introduction. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 9 is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, defined for the purposes of this Section as including the plan text and/or the land use map.~ The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A.RCW) generally allows amendments to comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in emergency situations.2 This Section 9 is intended to provide the following: A process whereby the county will compile and maintain a preliminary docket of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and then select whichproposed amendments will be placed on the final docket for review, no more often than once annually; a. Timelines and procedures for placing formal applications for amendments by interested parties (i.e., project proponents or property owners) on the final docket for review, no more often than once annually; and b. Criteria for review of the final docket by the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the Jefferson County Board of Comrrdssioners. This Section is also intended to provide a process for the Planning Commission to monitor and assess the Comprehensive Plan, and based on this review to recommend amendments (if any) to the Plan as part of a standardized amendment process. 2. Public Participation. The public participation process set forth in this Section 9 is intended to solicit from the public suggested amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future consideration, and to provide an opportunity for public comment on any proposed amendments. This is achieved by early and continuous public involvement with broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provisions for open discussion, information~ ervices, and consideration and response to public comments. 3. Planning Commission Role. The Jefferson County Planning Commission is an advisory body that shall make recommendations to the county commissioners on all Comprehensive Plan matters, including amendments to the Plan text and land use map, implementing regulations and sub-area plans. 4. Applicability of UDC Section 8. Amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the land use map, and the implementing regulations are legislative, Type V decisions under Section 8 of this Code. Accordingly, all applicable provisions of that Section apply to the decision-making process adopted in this Section 9, regardless of whether or not they are specifically referred to herein. ~ All references in this Section to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are intended to include the Comprehensive Plan text, the land use map adopted concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan and/or sub-area plans. 2 Final approval of a maior industrial development processed under Section 3.8 of this Code is considered per RCW 36.70A.365{3) to be an adopted amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map desi.qnatin.q the site as an urban qrowth area. Final approval of an application for a maior industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at anv time. This Section 9 does not apply. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON COUNTY INITIATED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will hold a public hearing to take testimony on a county initiated Unified Development Code amendment on Monday, February 2.5, 2002, at 2:00 PM in the BOCC Chambers in the basement of the Jefferson County Courthouse, Port Townsend, Washington. This is the second BOCC public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The county initiated UDC text amendment is being proposed to add provisions within the UDC to enable a permit review process for major industrial developments outside of urban growth areas. A new Section 3.8 Major Industrial Developments would be added to the UDC in addition to amendments to other existing sections. Currently, UDC Section 3.8 is reserved for future use. The additional language in Section 3.8 will accomplish Goal LNG 11.0 and its associated policies in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan to coordinate efforts with the City of Port Townsend to establish a process for authorizing the siting of major industrial developments (MIDs) outside designated urban growth areas that is consistent with RCW 36.70A.365. A proposed Interlocal Agreement between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend would also govern how potential major industrial developments are processed. Subsections of UDC Section 3.8 to be added are: Section 3.8.1, Purpose and Intent; Section 3.8.2, Application Requirements and Approval Process; Section 3.8.3, Approval Criteria; Section 3.8.4, Conditional Use Requirements; Section 3.8.5, Final Approval; Section 3.8.6, Phasing of Development, Expansion, Future Use of Land, Abandonment of Site, and Reverting to Previous Land Use District; and Section 3.8.7, Urban Growth in Adjacent Nonurban Areas, and Section 3.8.8 Re-authorization of UDC 3.8 after Initial Period of Implementation. Other sections of the UDC proposed for amendments in conjunction with the application process for major industrial developments are Section 2 Definitions (major industrial development); Table 6-1: Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards within Section 6 Development Standards (bulk and dimensional standards for major industrial developments); Section 8.11 Development Agreements (a mandatory aspect of a major industrial development application); and Section 9 Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations Amendment Process (clarifying that final approval of a major industrial development results in the creation of an urban growth area on the land use map). For copies of the proposed UDC amendments or other information related to this topic, contact Associate Planner Josh Peters of the Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98368, (360) 379-4466. Written comments may be submitted to the above address or at the BOCC office at the Courthouse and v~l~e accepted until the close of the public hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 2002. . Richard Wojt, Chairman Jefferson County Board of Commissioners PROPO,~ED. 4DDITIO.N TO THE UNIFIED DEI "ELO.PJ~/iEJNTI' CODE' This version of UDC Section 3.8, dated Februan.: 25, 2002 at approximately 4 00 Pix,f, includes changes discussed during the second BOCC public heating on the topic, at 2:00 PM on February 25. 2002. SECTION 3: LAND USE DISTRICTS 3.8 Major Industrial Development 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to establish a process for reviewing and approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major industrial developments outside urban growth areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365 and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. "Major industrial development" means a master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a) requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multitenant office parks. A parce! shall not be i~n~ ~nnli~-~ti,-,n~ '~., major inri,,~t,;~l ~l .... i ..... t~ ma}, h ...... m~ ,~,, parcels of 2. Application Requirements and Approval ~rocess. Ma]or industrial development applications shall be processed as Type Ill conditional use permits under this Code, requiring an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Additionally, a aevelopment agreement between the County and the applicant (and other pa~ies, as necessary) is a mandatory element of a major industrial development application and shall be processed per Section 8.1 I. The open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall, in an effo~ to consolidate the application review process, se~e as the public hearing required before approval of a Type Ill permit and before adoption of a development agreement via ordinance or resolution. The development a~reement shall not be adopted b~ the Board of County Commissioners until the Hearinq Examiner approves the conditional use permit application. Rcw 36.70A.365(3} states that final approval of a ma]or industrial development shall be considered an adopted ~m~dmnt to tn~ comprehensive plan designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban gro~h area. If an application for a major industrial development in Jefferson County is approved as a conditional use by the Hearing Examiner, the conditional use approval in combination with the required Board o~ County Commissioners' adoption of the development agreement via ordinance or resolution shall be considered "final approval," the result of which shall amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Final approval of an application for a ma]or industrial development and the corresponding amendment to the land use map shall not be considered an ~m~ndm~nt to th~ Compre,e,~/~e Plan for the p~rpos~ o* ROW 3e.70A. 130(2) a~a may be considered at any time. Section 9.4 of this Code, the standard process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, does not apply. 3. Approval Criteria. A major industrial development may be approved outside an urban gro~h area in Jefferson County under this section if the following criteria are FebmaO, 25, 2002 4:00 ]-¥~,I Propo.r~d UDC 3.8 I met, in addition to other applicable regulations of this Code not specifically referenced herein: The proposal must require for operation fortv (40) or more acres, includinq acreage for required buffers; ~.b_.._...The p-r~-~"~s.~a~-~sa~.is-fi~es-~..~a!.!~.t~h.~e-..~Eg-q~i¢~Q~!-g~9~".approval criteria conditiona! uses listed in UDC 8.8.5~; including consideration of theWhen reviewing the project's "merit and value for the community as a whole," and the re!event goals and policies of +k,~ Jefferson County r-,,,~,,~,~,,~,,~;,,,~ ~,, ~,~ ,, ~um~er ~f ~cres used), per UDC 8.8.5(10) a~d (11);, consideration shall be given to the number of lobs created. The number of iobs per net acre of development, not includinq the required buffers, shall be typical for the type of industry proposed. ii. ~When analvzin.q the potential "negative effects" and "cumulative effects of approved ~o~'-~ ~,,,4..~+~o~ ,4 .... ~ ..... ~o ~,,k ....... + im~oC+~ ~imil2r actions in the area," per UDC 8.8.5(12), consideration shall be given to the number and relative locations of maior industrial developments permi~ed in Jefferson Oounty and their subsequent or anticipate~ impacts; A development agreement is included in the application pursuant to UDC 8.11; ~d. New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid; Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are approved and implemented and the general development standards related to traffic as contained in UDC 6.2.5 are met; Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent non-urban areas and managed according to an approved Landscape Plan, per UDC 6.13 Landscaping/Screening, except that buffers for major industrial developments shall be fifty (50) feet of Screen-B landscaping for road frontages and 100 (one hundred) feet of Screen-A landscaping for interior lot lines along any portion adjacent to a non-urban area, including rural residential districts and designated resource lands, except as may be varied by the Administrator under 6.13.2.b; Bulk and dimensional standards for major industrial development urban growth areas are satisfied pursuant to Table 6-1 of this Code; Environmental protection including noise, air and water quality has been addressed and provided for, per requirements of this Code (UDC 3.6.4 et seq. and other applicable sections) and other mitigative 25, 2002 -1:00.1'~i~4 Proposed UDC .~.8 2 measures as appropriate through review under the State Environmental Policy Act per chapter 43.21C RCW and UDC 8.10; ~.i. Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands via interior lot lines buffers per 3.8.3.c above and other case- or site-specific measures as determined through State Environmental Policy Act review; The plan for the major industrial development is consistent with the provisions to protect environmentally sensitive areas as presented in Section 3.6.4 et seq. of this Code; Appropriate and suitable measures are established for the environmental remediation and/or restoration of the site in the case of future abandonment of the industrial or commercial operation, as determined through environmental review of the application and commensurate with the impacts of the specific use permitted; 1~i. If phasing of development (per 3.8.6.a below) is contemplated by the applicant, the overall project plan, including general timelines for construction but illustrating building footprints and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted with future building permit applications, must be presented in the original application such that the overall plan is established through the conditional use permit and/-a~ a development agreement; and l,m. For major industrial development applications made pursuant to 3.8.1(a), above, the County has determined and entered findings that land suitable to site the major industrial development is unavailable within the urban growth area according to the current inventory of developable land within urban growth areas. Priority shall be given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to the urban growth area. For applications under 3.8.1(a) or (b), the County must also find that the proposal is appropriately defined as a major industrial development and should not be more appropriately categorized as some other type of land use application. The Approving Authority may use discretion in considering specific major industrial developments proposed for specific land use districts based on the nature of the proposed use and activity. Conditional Use Requirements. Major industrial developments shall comply with UDC 8.8 Conditional Uses, including provisions on the use of the property before the final decision (8.8.7), the effective period of the permit and the expiration (8.8.8), modification to the permit (8.8.9), the validity of the permit when there is change in ownership of the land (8.8.10), permit suspension or revocation (8.8.11), and the requirement of an assurance device and/or additional conditions at County discretion (8.8.12 and 8.8.6). Final Approval. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365(3), final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. The urban growth area associated with a major Febmau; 2S, 2002 4:00 .I'2,.¥I J~roposed UDC 3.8 3 industrial development shall be a limited urban growth area intended for the specific major industrial development and not to absorb future population and other goals of mixed-use urban growth areas. A decision of approval by the Hearing Examiner regarding the conditional use permit, in combination with the Board of County Commissioners' adoption via ordinance of the associated development agreement, shall be considered "final approval." Final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. Phasing of Development, Expansion, Future Use of Land, Abandonment of Site, and Reverting to Previous Land Use District. a. The County recognizes that economic and other considerations may necessitate that business plans for a major industrial development be characterized by phasing of development (i.e., a portion of the overall site plan is constructed first, followed at a later date by the next portion or rest of the site plan, depending on economic and other factors). The major industrial development urban growth area established in the original application process would delineate the overall site plan. For phasing of development to be approvable, the overall project plan, including general timelines for construction but illustrating building footprints and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted with future building permit applications, must be presented in the original application. Per UDC 8.8.8, the proponent must file for the building permits or other necessary permits associated with the first phase of the development within three (3) years of the effective date of the conditional use permit, unless the permit approval provides for a greater period of time. b. Expansion of the major industrial development beyond the boundaries of the original site plan and established urban growth area would require the full permit approval process described in this section of the Code. c. Future use of the land is determined and bound by the original application and development agreement. Per UDC 8.8.10, no other use is allowed without approval of an additional conditional use permit. A future application for a major industrial development that utilizes the same land area within the previously established urban growth area is approvable if the required Code and statutory criteria are met. Final legislative approval following conditional use approval would be unnecessary in this case, as the urban growth area is already established on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. If the dimensions of the urban growth area must be modified, that process would be undertaken pursuant to UDC 9.4. d. The owners of land zoned and used for major industrial development and/or the conditional use permittee and/or other entity as appropriate for particular circumstances shall be responsible for appropriate and suitable environmental remediation and/or restoration of the site in the case of abandonment of the industrial or commercial operation. The responsible part shall be identified in the development agreement and/or conditional use permit. The responsibility for appropriate and suitable environmental remediation and/or restoration will be ~'ebruap,, 25, 2002 4:00 T).~ ! Proposed ~.;DC 3.8 4 [ determined through environmental review of the application and commensurate with the impacts of the specific use permitted. An environmental remediation and/or restoration plan shall be established in the development agreement and/~; conditional use permit approval. e. Under certain circumstances, it may be deemed appropriate by the County that the major industrial development urban growth area, or a portion thereof, revert to the previous land use district, or in rare cases change to another land use district. A change to the Comprehensive Plan land use map shall be considered as a Comprehensive Plan amendment application during the annual amendment cycle as governed in Section 9 of this Code. Urban Growth in Adjacent Nonurban Areas. RCW 36.70A requires that development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in nonurban areas adjacent to major industrial developments. Jefferson County rural land use districts are characterized by rural densities (i.e., one dwelling unit per five or more acres for rural residential and less dense for resource lands). In order to ensure that these controls remain effective, it should be noted that proximity to a major industrial development urban growth area or development or extension of !.~(f.~.[.L~.~.U.!~.shall not provide a basis for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use district for property adjacent to a major industrial development to a land use district with greater development density or more intensive uses. Re-authorization of UDC 3.8 after initial period of implementation, In order to ensure that the standards contained in Section 3.8, as applied to applications for major industrial developments, result in acceptable and desirable impacts to the physical and cultural landscape of Jefferson County, the County Commissioners shall, upon the occurrence of five approved major industrial developments or the passage of five years from the date this section was adopted, whichever occurs first, hold a public hearing and take action to reauthorize, modify, suspend or delete Section 3.8 of the UDC. Any amendments for the UDC proposed by the County Commissioners as a result of that public hearing shall be processed pursuant to Section 9 of the UDC. Februao, 25, 2002 4:00 .I.¥~! Proposed [fDC 3.8 5 THIS PAGE ALTERED AT 4.:00 PiM. FEB. 25, 2002 1. Purpose. This Section establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A decision to enter into a development agreement shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement may be appropriate for large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not contemplated by existing development regulations or existing application procedures. 2. Development Agreements - General Requirements. Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the County, except~,~.. ~ ........ .~ re.~_zWked to,2ether-:.'i~ ar~plications for Master Planned Resorts in accordance with Section 3.4.3.b of the UDC and major industrial developments in accordance with Sections 3.8.2 of thc UDC.. Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the County shall be parties to a development agreement, provided that if a proposed development is within an adopted municipal UGA, the applicable town or city shall also be a party to the agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party beneficiaries and utility service providers. Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other conditions that shall apply to and govern the development, use and mitigation of the property subject to the agreement. When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project permits for development of the property. Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code, except in the case of a Master Planned Resort (which requires a Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Section 3.6.4 et. seq. may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement. City of Por~ Townsend Office of the City Manager W'atermm & Katz Building 181 Quincy Strut, Suim 201, Po~ Townsm~ WA 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290 · Comments Feb 25 02 i2:55p Cit~ o~ PT Rdmin (3~0~385-42~0 p.2 City of Port Townsend Office of City Attorney Waterman & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street,/t201, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Telephone: (360) 385-599I Fax: (360) 385-4290 e-mail: j watts~ci, port-townsend, wa. us February 25, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County RE: MID UDC Amendments Dear Board of County Commissioners: County staff invited comments from the City concerning the draft UDC amendments. First, I have no problem with the changes David Alvarez suggested to the Interlocal Agreement in his fax to me of February 22, 2002. Re the UDC, the following is submitted for your consideration. 40-acre minimum language. I concur in the comments submitted by BCD Director Randall concerning locating this requirement in the approval criteria section. Leaving it in the purposes and intent section leaves an interpretation question whether it is mandatory. Jobs per acre. I recommend clarifying the language County staff added, by adding the following italicized language (shown on the attached line in/line out version) "The ri~nber of ,jobs created per net acre of development, not including the required buffers, shall be typical for the type of industry proposed, and further, for non-natural resource-based industry, reflect levels of employment which are consistent with or more than the average jobs per acre for urban industrial developmen t; ..." The intent of the MIDs (reflected in the reference in the MID process to jobs per acre) is to limit the applicability of MIDs to projects that result in economic development. A project that seeks to convert a large non-UGA parcel without providing many jobs is inconsistent with the economic development purpose of allowing MIDs. For example, a warehouse or storage facility that employed only a few people would not be consistent with economic development. The following comments come from the City Conmnents documents discussed at the February 6 JGMSC meeting. · ~M ul~ o~ ~l Hamln ~UJ3~b-4~SO City of Port Town~end John Watts, City Attorney FebruaU, 25, 2002, Page 2 Change "and/or" references to "and" (3.8.3 (lc); 3.6(d)), to be consistent with requirement in UDC that a development agreement is n~andatory (not optional): If phasing of development (per 3.8.6.a below) is contemplated by the applicant, the overall project plan, including general timelines for construction but illustrating building footprints and projected uses in lieu of design details to be submitted with future building permit applications, must be presented in the original application such that the overall plan is established through the conditional use permit and/e~ a development agreement; An environmental remediatJon and/or restoration plan shall be established in the development agreement and/or conditional use permit approval. [3.6(d)] 2. Revise UDC 8. ll.2.(a) to specify that development agreement is a mandatory element of a MID approval process, by adding: "A development agreement is a mandatory element o_.[ the MID approval process." 3. Add reference in 8.11,2(b) that: other parties to a dev. agreement may include: "municipalities and other local agencies (for example, fire distr~ctsL and citizen organizations." 4 Specify that dev. agreements should not be finalized before County completes full project review and project impacts are understood (per comment by state OCD), by adding italicized portion below: Application Requirements and Approval Process. Major industrial development applicalions shall be processed as Type III conditional use permits under this Code, requiring an open record hearing before the Hearing' Examiner. Additionally, a development agreement between the County and the applicant (and other parties, as necessary) is a mandatory element of a major industrial development application and shall be processed per Section 8.11. Development a.qreements wilt not be finalized before full prelect review is completed .... Add reference that location of MIDs is not a basis for extension of urban services to area (just as location of MID is not grounds for surrounding area to rezone - UDC 3.8.7) Urban Growth in Adjacent Nonurban Areas. RCW 36.70A requires that development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in nonurban areas adjacent to major industrial developments. Jefferson County rural land use districts are characterized by rural densities (i.e., one dwelling unit per five or more acres for rural residential and less dense for resource lands). In order to ensure that these controls remain effective, it should be noted that proximity to a major industrial development urban growth area or development or extension of infrastructure shall not provide a basis for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use distdct for property adjacent to a major industrial development to a land use distdct with greater development density or more intensive uses. 6. Make reference in the UDC to the Inteflocal Agreement and Flow Chart, to give notice to an applicant of these doccemtns. 7. Review ~e UDC after 2 MIDs/5 years (not 5 MIDs/5 years) Thank you for your consideration to these conmaents. Port Townsend Jolm Watts City Attorney john Warts, City Attorney February 25, 2002, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Return to: CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND City Clerk WATERM3%N & KATZ BUILDING 181 QUINCY STREET, SUITE 201 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 DRAFT February 19, 2002 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A.365 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREAMBLE A. Purpose B. Background II, AGREEMENT A. Parties to Agreement B. Authority C. Objectives D. Elements of Major Industrial Development Permit Process E. Principals and Standards F. General Provisions III. SIGNATURES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C: ~windows~TgMP~MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doc Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. PREAMBLE A. PURPOSE The purpose for this Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is to establish a cooperative process concerning the siting of Major Industrial Developments (MIDs) outside of urban growth areas (UGAs) in Jefferson County. B. BACKGROUND - UDC CONSISTENCY RCW 36.70A.365 allows counties planning under the Growth Management Act to establish, in consultation with cities, a process for the siting of specific Major Industrial Developments outside UGAs. County-wide Planning Policies provide a policy basis for siting certain industries outside UGAs. ("Certain industries 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 services." CWPP 7.4.) As of the date of this Agreement, the City is the only city, or UGA, within Jefferson County. The County is considering designation of another UGA. City and County staffs and elected officials, including representatives to the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee have met on several occasions in 2001 and 2002 to discuss the matter. County and City planning staffs were directed to prepare necessary amendments to County and City codes and plans and draft an Interlocal Agreement in order to create a process for the siting of MIDs outside of UGAs in Jefferson County. Jefferson County will amend, and thereafter maintain, its Unified Development Code (UDC) to provide a process regulating MIDs consistent with this Agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C: ~windows~TEMP\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doc Page 2 of 11 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. AGREEMENT A. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into individually by Jefferson County (hereinafter referred to as "County") and the City of Port Townsend (hereinafter referred to as "City"). B. AUTHORITY This Agreement constitutes an exercise of authority granted to the City and County under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Copies of this Agreement Shall be filed with the Jefferson County Auditor and the Washington State Office of Community Development. Copies shall be available at the City Clerk's Office. C. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Agreement are: 1. To establish a process between the Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend for review of pre-applications for Major Industrial Developments (MIDs). 2. To create a process that complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, as amended. 3. To include procedures for the early sharing of pre-application information between the County and the City. 4. To design an MID application and review process that is cooperative, but also predictable and efficient. ELEMENTS OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS County-City Activity - Inventory of Developable Land a. City and County planning staffs shall work jointly to prepare informational handouts explaining the siting of commercial and industrial developments (including MIDs). The handouts shall be available at both the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C:\wlndows\TEMP\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doc Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jefferson County Department of Community Development and the City of Port Townsend Office of Building and Community Development. b. The City and the County shall respectively prepare an inventory of developable land (and may do this in conjunction with the Jefferson County Economic Development Council) and make this data available to the other. This data shall be kept on a searchable database and shall be updated every two (2) years or less. c. The City has determined that projects of over 40 acres are not likely to be sited or suitable for development in the City. MID Pre-Application Requirements Any applicant for a project over forty (40) acres in size will first apply for a pre- application with Jefferson County prior to submitting a formal MID application. The applicant shall submit pre-application submittals and pay pre-application fees as provided by the UDC and this Agreement. The pre-application materials shall include submittal requirements set forth in Exhibit A (attached). Fees shall provide for recovery of County and City stafftime necessary to evaluate the pre-application materials. A minimum of ten (10) days before the pre-application meeting, City planning staffwill be provided a copy of the pre-application materials, will be notified of the time and place of the pre-application meeting, and shall be invited to attend. An applicant shall not submit an Application for a MID until the pre-application process provided by this Agreement is completed, An applicant for an industrial project of 40 acres in size or less will first apply to the City. An applicant shall not submit an Application for a MID until the City has issued a statement that no site is available or appropriate within the City for the project. 17_~'1_~ ,,~) ,']~x./ ~)_V~l~7_- [NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C:~windows\TEMP\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doc Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Jefferson County Department of Community Development and the City of Port Townsend Office of Building and Community Development. b. The City and the County shall respectively prepare an inventory of developable land (and may do this in conjunction with the Jefferson County Economic Development Council) and make this data available to the other. This data shall be kept on a searchable database and shall be updated every two (2) years or less. c. The City has determined that projects of over 40 acres are not likely to be sited or suitable for development in the City. MID Pre-Application Requirements Any applicant for a project over forty (40) acres in size will first apply for a pre- application with Jefferson County prior to submitting a formal MID application. The applicant shall submit pre-application submittals and pay pre-application fees as provided by the UDC and this Agreement. The pre-application materials shall include submittal requirements set forth in Exhibit A (attached). Fees shall provide for recovery of County and City stafftime necessary to evaluate the pre-application materials. A minimum often (10) days before the pre-application meeting, City planning staff will be provided a copy of the pre-application materials, will be notified of the time and place of the pre-application meeting, and shall be invited to attend. An applicant shall not submit an Application for a MID until the pre-application process provided by this Agreement is completed. An application for an industrial project that is less than 40 acres in size will not be processed as a MID application by the County, but may obtain the necessary permits pursuant to other sections of the County's UDC. Any applicant for an industrial project that is less than 40 acres in size must begin its/their siting process by having a pre-application meeting with the City's BCD Department. [NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments Page 4 of 11 G: \PROSATTY\Civil\David\major ind. developments\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version-city.doc 3. County Purview: Projects subiect to County purview involve. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Projects over 40 acres either as a single project, or a project proposed to be built in phases and the first phase is over 40 acres. For these projects, the City will have five (5) business days after the pre-conference meeting to comment on the proposal. City Purview: Proiects 40 acres or less For any industrial project under 40 acres (where the project is not allowed in the County under existing (at the time of the application) County zoning designation and UDC provisions), the project will be under City purview and the applicant shall apply to the City of Port Townsend for project review. E. PRINCIPALS AND STANDARDS 1. MID applications will be processed pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Jefferson County UDC. Applications for industrial projects in the City will be processed according to City development regulations. 2. The City retains the right to participate throughout a MID permit application process, as provided for pursuant to the comment periods, public hearings, and appeal processes contained in the UDC and this Agreement. The City retains the right to support a project as meeting MID criteria, or to oppose a project as not meeting MID criteria or to make no determination on whether a project meets MID criteria. The City always retains the right to request project mitigation through the SEPA or CUP process, or mitigation through revenue sharing. 3. In evaluating pre-application and application materials for a MID, the County and City agree to be bound by, and will support by letter and testimony to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner, the following principles and standards: NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C: ~windows\TEMP\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doc Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a. There shall exist a presumption that favors siting a major industrial project within a UGA ifa site is available. Priority shall be given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to a UGA. b. Adequate guarantees shall be included in a development agreement that project infrastructure is built before occupancy, or bonded for completion. For phased projects, a development agreement shall specify that infrastructure for each phase is complete (or bonded for completion) before succeeding phases are started. 4. A large industrial facility located in the City may be found to have an adverse effect upon the County. A MID located in the County may be found to have an adverse effect upon the City. Adverse impacts include but are not limited to impacts on public services and infrastructure. The City through its SEPA and development review process agrees to provide adequate mitigation of project impacts, including mitigation of demonstrated impacts to the County, from a large industrial facility located in the City. The County through its SEPA and UDC process agrees to provide adequate mitigation of project impacts, including mitigation of demonstrated impacts to the City, from a MID located in the County. 5. Whether a property is or is not listed for sale or on an inventory of developable land is not determinative of whether it is land suitable to site a project. 6. A project's size for purposes of this Agreement is the project's buildings and improvements, and includes an area for buffers or project mitigation that is required by the permitting and SEPA processes. 7. Consistent with County-wide Planning Policies that "the City... and County will address issues of tax revenue sharing ... through the development of interlocal agreements" (CWPP 9.3), the parties agree to negotiate in good faith whether tax revenues the County derives from a MID after the MID commences operations, or tax revenues the City derives from industrial development within the City, should be shared to mitigate adverse impacts on the City from the MID, or the County from industrial development within the City. Tax revenue sharing would not apply if adverse impacts are fully mitigated through the SEPA and/or permitting process. If the parties are not INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C: ~windows\TEMP~MID In~erlocal 2.19.02 Version. doe Page 6 of 11 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 able to agree on whether revenue-sharing is appropriate, then the parties agree to resolve their dispute according to the process set forth in paragraph F (3) below. Any issue, unresolved dispute, or arbitration proceeding between the City and County concerning revenue-sharing does not involve a MID applicant, and shall be dealt with independently by the City and County, and separately from the permitting process of a MID application, and shall not be a basis for delay of the MID permitting process. 8. This Agreement does not apply to an applicant for an industrial project in the County, where the application is for a project that is allowed in the County under existing (at the time of the application) County zoning designation and UDC provisions. F. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Relationship to Existing Laws and Statutes Except as specifically provided herein, the County and City do not abrogate the decision- making authority vested in them by law. This Agreement in no way modifies or supersedes existing State laws and statutes. 2. Oversight The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC), or its successor, shall be designated as responsible for monitoring and reviewing implementation of this Agreement, including consideration of possible changes to the MID process and this Interlocal Agreement should another UGA be designated or a City incorporated in the County. The County and the City do not, by this Agreement, concede or offer to the other party of this Agreement control and supervision of their respective employees. 3. Dispute Resolution In the event there is a dispute between the parties over revenue sharing which the parties cannot resolve informally between themselves, then the City and County shall proceed as follows: The parties shall attempt to agree on an arbitrator. In the event an arbitrator cannot be agreed on, the same shall be appointed by the WGMHB (if they are in a position to do so), or selected by the Presiding Judge of the Jefferson County Superior Court on motion. The costs of arbitration shall be equally divided. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding, and enforceable pursuant to RCW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C: ~windows\TEMP~MID Interlocal 2.19,02 Version.doe Page 7 of 11 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7.04. The arbitrator shall establish such procedural rules as the arbitrator deems appropriate. The arbitrator's ruling(s) shall be consistent with state laws, this Interlocal Agreement, County-wide Planning Policies, County UDC, and City code. 4. Amendments The County and City recognize that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary to clarify the requirements of particular sections to update the Agreement. All parties, by action of their legislatures in open meeting, must agree in writing with any proposed amendments to this Agreement before such an amendment becomes effective. 5. Effective Date and Term of Agreement/Provisions for Termination The 'effective date' for this Agreement shall be the latter of the two dates when the City Council or the County Commissioners, acting in their distinct legislative capacities, adopt this Interlocal Agreement. If th°se legislative bodies adopt this Agreement on the same date, then that date shall be the effective date. All time periods in this section shall be measured to or from the effective date. The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years from the effective date hereof and shall automatically be renewed for subsequent five-year (5-year)terms and thereafter for as long as the County providesf, ar.,, [ location of MIDs within the County. If the County deletes the MIDs approval proce~ff~¥ the UDC, this Agreement shall terminate, provided, if the County reauthorizes a MID process, this Agreement shall be in effect unless the parties agree otherwise. 6. Severability If any provision of this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C: ~windows~TEMP~MID Interlocal 2 . 19.02 Version. doc Page 8 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 7.04. The arbitrator shall establish such procedural rules as the arbitrator deems appropriate. The arbitrator's ruling(s) shall be consistent with state laws, this Interlocal Agreement, County-wide Planning Policies, County UDC, and City code. 4. Amendments The County and City recognize that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary to clarify the requirements of particular sections to update the Agreement. All parties, by action of their legislatures in open meeting, must agree in writing with any proposed amendments to this Agreement before such an amendment becomes effective. 5. Effective Date and Term of Agreement/Provisions for Termination The 'effective date' for this Agreement shall be the latter of the two dates when the City Council or the County Commissioners, acting in their distinct legislative capacities, adopt this Interlocal Agreement. If those legislative bodies adopt this Agreement on the same date, then that date shall be the effective date. All time periods in this section shall be measured to or from the effective date. The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years from the effective date hereof and shall automatically be renewed for subsequent five-year (5-year) terms and thereafter for as long as the County provides for location of MIDs within the County, If the County deletes the MIDs approval process fi'om the UDC, this Agreement shall terminate, provided, if the County reauthorizes a MID process, this Agreement shall be in effect unless the parties agree otherwise. 6. Severability If any provision of this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Agreement. INTER_LOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments Page 8 of I I G:\PR0SATTY\Civil\David\major ind. developments\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version-city.doe 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party to this Agreement as evidenced by signature pages affixed to this Agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A. 365 SIGNATURE PAGE [NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C:\windows\TEMP\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doc Page 9 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Interlocal Agreement for Review of Applications for Major Industrial Developments outside of urban growth areas in Jefferson County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This Agreement has been executed by Jefferson County By: Title: Date: Attest: By: (County Clerk of the Board) Approved as to Form: By: (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney) SEAL: [NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C:~windows\TEMP\MID Interlocal 2.19.02 Version. doe Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A.365 SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Interlocal Agreement for Review of Applications for Major Industrial Developments outside of urban growth areas in Jefferson County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This Agreement has been executed by the City of Port Townsend By: Title: Date: Attest: By: (City Clerk) Approved as to Form: By: (City Attorney) SEAL: ~TERLOCAL AGREEMENT: Major Industrial Developments C:~windows~TEMP~MID Interlocal 2.19,02 Version. doc Pagellofll