Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092503S Regional Intergovernmental Meeting Thursday, September 25,2003 10:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse City of Port Townsend Port of Port Townsend Public Utility District #1 of Jefferson County Jefferson County Minutes can To Order The following representatives were present: · City of Port Townsend Councilmembers: Joe Finnie, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval, Frieda Fenn and GeoffMasci · Port Commissioners: Bob Sokol, Herb Beck, and Conrad Pimer · PUD Commissioners: David Sullivan and Wayne King · Jefferson County Commissioners: Dan Titterness, Glen Huntingford, and Judi Mackey Dan Titterness, serving as Chair, opened the meeting with approximately 30 interested citizens in attendance. Representatives from the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development were introduced: Senior Policy Analyst Heather Ballash, Brent Bahrenberg from EDC Services, and Doug Peters, a Growth Management Planner. Public Comment: Dan Titterness asked that public comments be held until later in the meeting after the discussion. Discussion: Jefferson County Issues Related to the Growth Management Act: Heather Ballash explained that SESSB5659 was passed in the last legislative session to provide additional tools for local governments to raise revenues through taxes. Two sections were added prior to adoption: 1) to change the deadline for Comprehensive Plan and development regulation updates for Jefferson and Clallam Counties from December, 2004 to 2005, and 2) to allow Ferry County to opt out of planning under the Growth Management Act. Governor Locke vetoed these sections because no criteria had been established. He directed Ron Shultz, Policy Analyst for the Governor's Office, and CTED staff to meet with elected officials in the rural, less populated and slower growing counties. These are counties that are financially struggling to comply with GMA or have issues regarding the current GMA Hearings Board process and deference to local decisions. Regional Intergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 2 Heather Ballash asked that the elected officials address the following questions in their discussion: 1. What has been your experience in each of these areas? 2. What specific issues do you feel need to be addressed? 3. What changes would you propose to address these issues, legislative and nonlegislative? Glen Huntingford pointed out that he has talked with Commissioners from larger counties and found that they have several employees in their Prosecuting Attorney's Offices and Community Development Departments that deal specifically with GMA issues. Jefferson County has one Prosecuting Attorney and two planners who must deal with their daily workload and all the added GMA issues. Bob Sokol noted that a Comprehensive Plan amendment costs $20,000 - $30,000 and in a small county most of these amendments get appealed. Until recently, the GMA Hearings Board has usually ruled in favor of the appellant and against Jefferson County which adds to the cost and workload of the County staff in order for the County to come into compliance. Michelle Sandoval explained that, before she became a City Councilmember, she served on the County Planning Commission during the writing of the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. She was also involved in two Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. The City currently processes site specific Comprehensive Plan amendments each year, but the legislative amendments are done every other year to free up staff time to do other work and implement the Plan. There were nineteen County Comprehensive Plan amendments last year and the cost, time, and work involved has to be overwhelming when the County's long range planning budget is $250,000. More amendments result in more appeals by citizen groups. According to GMA, the City is required to take the growth and the City has a serious problem with outdated infrastructure that doesn't support infill. Affordable housing is impossible. The City is expected to provide additional fire, police, sewer, water, roads and library services and the State can help by allowing cities to have impact fees on more services. People moving into Port Townsend from urban areas expect a much higher level of service than a small town in a rural county can provide. Dan Titterness pointed out that when the County's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 according to the mandate, it was noted that several sections of the Plan would need to be revisited when time and money permitted. Many of the County-initiated amendments to the Plan are part of that completion process. Herb Beck explained that the timber industry was shut down in the early 1990s and the timber communities were also shut down. GMA made matters worse when commercial and industrial areas were tightlined and downzoned to residential in the rural areas. Without other industries, these areas haven't been able to recover, the tax base is dwindling, and development proposals usually get appealed. Dan Titternesss added that the County has attempted to encourage development outside the UGA within the constraints of the GMA by focusing on home businesses, cottage industries, and tourist and recreation opportunities. Regional Intergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 3 Dan Tittemess asked what the timeline is for reopening and readopting the Comprehensive Plan? Is the entire Plan open for appeal? In his opinion, there is a fundamental flaw in the appeal process when a person who is considered a party of record can ask the Hearings Board to reevaluate an action that has gone through a complete public process and been approved by the decision makers. When this occurs, frequently there is pressure put on the decision makers to negotiate a separate settlement which negates the public process. It undermines credibility at the local and state level. Glen Huntingford added that, several years ago, the WEC appealed the critical area provisions in the UDC and an agreement was negotiated that was legal ,and binding and the County has stood behind it. This agreement does not reflect the public process and since that experience, the County has adopted a policy of taking appeals back through the public process. Herb Beck stated that Coast Oyster, one of the biggest employers in Quilcene is located on 40 acres that was downzoned to residential when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. To expand the business, a conditional use permit is required but such a substantial business investment requires a firmer foundation. There needs to be greater flexibility for light industrial and commercial zoning in areas outside a UGA. Glen Huntingford noted that if the County tried to designate a light industrial zone in Quilcene, the Comprehensive Plan amendment would probably be appealed. Bob Sokol added that there are marinas in Quilcene and Pleasant Harbor in Brinnon that are currently downzoned to residential property. Boat repair should be a permitted use and landowners should be able to build workshops for their boat businesses. Michelle Sandoval pointed out that more and more farmers in the County are no longer able to earn a living. Small farms must remain viable or the rural farmlands will become a suburban area of 20 acre lots. The State needs to look at funding for small fanners and some flexibility in the type of cooperatives or processing that is allowed on their land. There may be a way to have some subsidy for farmland through conservation and agriculture easements. People need to have the "right to farm" and this needs to include processing crops and selling retail on site. There was a discussion about the process that is required to change the laws and how guidance from CTED regarding flexibility within the current laws may be more beneficial. David Sullivan reported that this year several bills regarding water legislation were passed. One of the bills that wasn't passed was regarding replacement wells. He would like to see it come back next year because it would allow the PUD to move their well and still service the same area. Rainwater catchment legislation was also introduced and dropped. There isn't an exemption for catchment like there is for groundwater, so technically a water right is needed. The legislation got caught up between environmentalists and agriculturalists who wanted to expand the bill. For home or business, rainwater catchment needs to be allowed. Dan Tittemess replied that this was addressed at the County level because of a recent Hearings Board decision. However, this is not a permanent solution and it probably needs to be a legislative decision. In his opinion, Hearings Board decisions need to be limited to matters of process and local government needs to have deference about implementing their plans. Regional futergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 4 Michelle Sandoval stated that the jurisdictions need more direction from the State regarding the confines of the law. More specific and definitive direction is needed on SEPA requirements on amendments that create large changes. Glen Huntingford asked if the Hearings Board has the authority to make decisions about SEP A? The rules aren't clear regarding SEP A on non-project actions and how it interacts with GMA. Bob Sokol explained that the Port is using established guidelines to determine what is compatible near the airport. The FAA and DOT support local governments protecting essential public facilities. The Port supports putting those guidelines in the legislation. There have been a lot of appeals based on not "enough" public input, SEP A, etc. Who decides what "enough" is? Some of these amendments and appeals have gone on for years. Freida Fenn stated that she participated in a citizen's group appeal to the Hearings Board against the County. She considers the process to be participatory democracy. It isn't necessary to hire an attorney. This is the only enforcement ofland use law in Washington State. If the Hearings Board's authority is weakened, the State will need to take over enforcement. She supports the current system. Dan Titterness replied that citizens have the right to participate throughout the public process until the final decision is made. There is a basic tenet in law that doesn't allow "a second bite of the apple." That is the situation that the Legislature has set up with the current appeals process. He supports the City's request regarding the need to fund infrastructure. Impact fees are contrary to GMA because they raise the cost of development within the UGA which makes it more desirable to develop outside the UGA. The UGAs need to have some means of developing infrastructure without imposing impact fees. Michelle Sandoval replied that her position regarding impact fees is that they aren't high enough. The City and the County need an "even playing field," and currently the County has an easier, less costly process for development. This encourages people to live outside the UGA, but they still come into the City for services. She wants to learn more about revenue sharing agreements between the City and the County. Glen Huntingford added that a "starter" house with $30,000 in impact fees is unreasonable. It needs to cost less to build in the UGA. Wayne King noted that it is important to let the public have their say and he supports the current GMA Hearings Board process. Growth management is for the people, not for the politicians, because it is the peoples' property and community. The County doesn't need a Walmart, it needs to support existing businesses and creating more jobs. Joe Finnie requested that CTED staff compile and publish the information from the counties they are visiting. He is interested in the most frequently stated concerns. He also wants to see a proposal from CTED and the Governor's Office about what they intend to do about these concerns. Regional Intergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 5 Heather Ballash replied that the comments they are collecting will be sent to the counties they are visiting and the Governor wants specific recommendations by November. She added that a GMA Work Group, made up of stakeholders including WSAC, A WC, Planning Directors, WEC, 1000 Friends of Washington, League of Women Voters, National Association of Office and Industrial Parks, the Realtors and the Farm Bureau, was also formed as the result of a report by the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association. This group is looking at the broader issues around growth management. She suggested that if the elected officials are members of any of these organizations, they may want to contact them. The Governor felt that it was also important to visit the counties and that is why CTED set up these meetings. Glen Huntingford stated that the County had four or five appeals before the Growth Management Hearings Board, and it seemed like the Hearings Board was overloaded because when the County was making a presentation, one of the Hearings Board members said they hadn't had a chance to read the plan that was being appealed. The Hearings Board needs to look at the full record when there is an appeal and not just the one issue that is being appealed. Glen Huntingford asked if the entire Comprehensive Plan can be appealed if the County does an internal review, finds it in compliance with GMA, and re-adopts it in the update process? He explained that an appeal went to the Hearings Board, they found the County in compliance, and the group that appealed has said that when the Comprehensive Plan is re-adopted, they will appeal it again. Heather Ballash answered that this is a major topic of concern that is being addressed by the Work Group. The State needs to give clear direction about what can be appealed. There is a real concern about opening up this issue in front of the Legislature and they are hoping to have a non-legislative solution. David Sullivan added that ifpeople went through the Court system instead ofappea1ing to the Growth Management Hearings Board, the cost would be prohibitive. GeoffMasci suggested that the Legislature create a trust fund to help rural UGAs fund infrastructure costs. The fund could be created by a premium based issue from B & 0 tax. In Jefferson County, businesses are very modest enterprises and there needs to be a distinction at the State level regarding "small business" in a small county and "small business" in a big county. Public Comment Larry Crockett. Executive Director of the Port of Port Townsend, agreed that the current appeal process is a problem. Public officials are elected to make decisions and if the voters don't like the decisions, they won't vote for them again. He doesn't want the Hearings Board making decisions for him. GMA can't be looked at as a "stand alone" entity. When the Port has small projects, local businesses on their roster can't bid on them because of State laws. They can't pay Seattle prevailing wages. All these entities and laws have to support each other to allow the rural counties to carry out their responsiblities. Regional Intergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 6 David Alvarez. Jefferson County Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, explained that he handles the GMA work for the County. He made the following suggestions regarding procedure: 1) it should 'cost the same amount to file a Hearings Board appeal as it does to file a complaint in Superior Court; 2) site visits by the Hearings Board should be mandatory if requested by either side; 3) any challenge on public participation should be a separate motion that is done up front because if the public participation is done wrong by the County, then everything will have to be redone; 4) there needs to be a new land use designation called a "remote LAMIRD" that would be located over 35 miles or more from a UGA; and, 5) when the County prepares the record for an appeal, there are boxes of documents to be copied and the person who appeals to the Hearings Board should pay 50% of copying costs. Jim Todd. stated that clarity and definitions need to be honed to avoid procedural violations which result in appeals to the Hearings Board. He supports the Hearings Board process because GMA decisions are permanent and affect communities. Concerned citizens need to have their input and disagree with the decision makers without having to go to Court. Mark Rose. Brinnon, explained that he is currently the appellant on an appeal to the Hearings Board. He agrees with the County Commissioners that appeals are a huge waste of time and resources and divide the community. His appeal is on the Brinnon Sub.area Plan. The change in commercial designations was upheld by the Hearings Board, but they said that the County needed to do a SEPA review on the light industrial designation. He appreciated the Hearings Board's guidance on how to improve the Plan and is grateful for that oversight. Every time there is an appeal, there is a failure of government and community to agree and some type of mediation or more oversight by CTED might help. He would welcome some other way to oversee County land use decisions, but right now the Hearings Board is the only option. The idea of a "remote LAMIRD" designation is good. He agrees that the Hearings Board should visit the site. There is a tremendous amount of paper waste generated by appeals and he suggested an electronic option. Tom McNerney. Chair of the County Planning Commission and a member of the Brinnon Subarea Planning Group, explained that they met for 2 years. There were 2 public comment periods during their meetings when people from the community spoke, including Mark Rose. The Brinnon Plan was approved by the group and forwarded to the County Commissioners who sent it to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission went through the entire public process on the Plan and recommended that the County Commissioners approve it. The County Commissioners approved the Plan, and it was appealed to the Appellant Hearing Examiner because of the SEP A review. He ruled that a recommended land use designation needed to have a SEP A review even though the project to be located there was only proposed. Since that time, the proponent has gone bankrupt and the project is not going forward. The Plan was reviewed again by the Brinnon Subarea Planning Group, the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners approved it in accordance with a recommendation from CTED. Then Mark Rose appealed it to the Hearings Board who said everything was fine except the gravel pit and the two rivers in the area which need a SEPA review. This has gone on for 3-4 years now and it still isn't finished. Everyone is frustrated. The Planning Commission is currently working on a proposal for agricultural lands that is aimed at keeping farms as viable businesses. Small farms need to be able to process their products and sell them on site. Regional Intergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 7 Regarding the Hearings Board process, County Prosecutors are elected and they make decisions about the type of charges to be filed against a person and those decisions aren't appealable by a neighbor. County Commissioners are elected to do their jobs, but then the Hearings Board process oversees their decisions and gives people a "second bite of the apple." The Hearings Board doesn't see the whole process. The Brinnon Plan took years to create and the Hearings Board can overrule it in a few hours. Doug: Campbell. stated that he was born and raised in Tacoma and saw the damage of unmanaged growth there, and he moved to Kitsap County and saw it there. Urban sprawl takes over and the downtown areas suffer. He moved to Jefferson County 3 years ago and he doesn't want his grandchildren to think that quality of life means "shop and spend." He doesn't want Jefferson County to become a ghetto of Kit sap and Pierce Counties. Pete Langley. owner of Port Townsend Foundary, stated that he is also a member of a Marine Trades Cluster Board sponsored by CTED. The County tightlined the commercial and industrial areas when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. It would have been better to have left these zones larger because it would have allowed for public access and businesses on the waterfront. The viable marine trades have never been fostered from within. The businesses here need to be able to expand, instead of bringing in businesses from other areas. There needs to be room for growth and new jobs. Residents need to be encouraged to support historically unutilized businesses instead of traveling out ofthe County to spend money. Tourism revenue is paying for a new Visitor's Center and instead it should pay for infrastructure. O'Neil Buchard-Simoson. stated that elected officials need citizen input. She is in favor of keeping small farms viable and the County's rural needs should be a priority. Arne Hanson. submitted a written statement and added that he is in support of GMA and it should apply to Jefferson County. He also supports the Hearings Board process. Randv Kline. citizen, stated that he feels the elected officials sitting at the table are a good set of checks and balances. As a land use planner for Jefferson County, he explained that in the Comprehensive Plan update process, Jefferson County has been grouped with King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and Whatcom County, and Clallam County and these counties are much larger than Jefferson County. Jefferson County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and has addressed "best available science" and every substantive amendment that has been made to the GMA since then. It might make more sense to focus on jurisdictions that haven't addressed best available science. Without a legislative fix or a fix from WSAC, Jefferson County will be the guinea pig. Josh Peters, Jefferson County land use Planner, suggested a radical idea. Bodies oflaw regarding landuse were created in the 1970s. The Growth Management Act was adopted in the 1990s. All of these laws need to be integrated into one body oflaw. Many of these laws overlap on issues and are not compatible because they use different standards. Regional Intergovernmental Meeting - September 25, 2003 Page: 8 Linda Tudor. stated that she was the Chair of the Brinnon Planning Group and has lived in Brinnon almost 30 years. She added that the CTED representatives are hearing comments from a very small section of the population. They aren't going to get an overall view from the people in the County by attending one meeting. She suggested that they have meetings in the communities, outside of government and outside of the political arena. Approval of the Minutes: Glen Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 2003 as presented. David Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Establish Next Meeting Responsibility and Date Glen Huntingford explained that the agenda for this meeting was changed because the representatives from CTED were attending. The meeting's original agenda was to review ajoint economic development strategy. He suggested that the next Regional Intergovernmental Meeting be hosted by Jefferson County. It will be scheduled in November. Michelle Sandoval requested that the agenda and information packets be sent out at least 3 weeks before the meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED