Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092192 i:..t~ v> ~ò~ MINUTES WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 Chairman Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commis- sioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were present. The Board went into Executive Session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth to discuss litigation. They then met with Community Services Director David Goldsmith to review the ADA Facilities Compliance Plan and the cost of implementing changes required by it. The County policy for reimbursement of employee travel expenses was also discussed. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There was discussion regarding designation of Urban Growth Areas required by the Growth Management Act, and questions about the process for the hearing on the County-wide Planning Policies. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to delete item number 2 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 85-92 re: In the Matter of Establishing a Petty Cash Fund and a Second Cash Drawer for the Animal Services Department 2. DELETE ITEM: AGREEMENT, Interlocal Governmental re: Bio-Solids Composting Facility; City of Port Townsend 3. AGREEMENT #92-10-06 (1); Amendment to Term (Term now June 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 - Human Services); Good Beginnings Child Care 4. Acceptance of the Quilcene Community Center Board of Directors 5. Approval and Adoption; Guidelines for Operations; Quilcene Community Center Board of Directors 6. Findings, Conclusions and Order; Short Plat Variance Request #SPI6-91; Janet Neal, Britton Kennedy, and Lee and Barbara Bodker 7. AGREEMENT GC-0423, Supplement No.1; Amendment to Make Agreement On- Going; Bridge Inspection Services; State Department of Transportation 8. AGREEMENT, Interagency; to Participate in contract with a consultant to develop standards for low volume roads; Pierce County APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes of August 24, and September 8, 1992 as presented. Commissioner Wojt second- ed the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , « -. " 18',~. 00 :,:Þ;! 919 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 2 Appointment of Jefferson County Representatives to the Peninsula Re2ional Support Network: Commissioner Brown moved to appoint Grace Chawes and Norma Forbes to the two vacant positions as Jefferson County representatives on the Peninsula Regional Support Network Advisory Board. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Gary Rowe. Bud2et Mana2er re: 1992 and 1993 Bud2et Shortfalls: Budget Manager Gary Rowe asked the Board for direction on what type of alternatives to prepare for their review to deal with the anticipated shortfall of $200,000 for 1992 and ap- proximately $500,000 in 1993. The Board concurred that he provide information on where cutbacks can be made in the 1992 budget. Temporary Restriction of Traffic on Orcas Drive: Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 86-92 to close Orcas Drive to all traffic from September 22, 1992 through September 30, 1992 for construction. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Chairman of the Board, the Auditor and the Treasurer met with the State Auditor in an entrance conference. PLANNING AND BUILDING Final Vitulli Short Plat #SP22-91: Two Lot Short Plat in Port Ludlow Area: Michelle Wood, Permit Technician, reported that all the required departments have signed off on the two lot short plat in the Port Ludlow area. This short plat will be on an approved community water system. Commissioner Brown moved to issue final approval for the Vitulli Short plat as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP92-0008 and Variance Request: Construct a Float Attached to the Shoreline by two 12 foot ramps: Site on the Southeast shore of Lake Leland: Ron Bur2h: Jim Pearson reported that this proposal is for a 330 square foot float on Lake Leland. A variance is required because the float is over 160 square feet in size. It is an anchored float. Mr. Burgh has proposed to share the use of this float with neighboring property owners. The Planning Department has proposed one condition which says "the float shall be for the private, non-commercia~ joint use of the owners of the proposal site and the immediately adjoining shoreline properties, subject to the mutual acceptance of a reasonable joint use agreement." The Shoreline Commission reviewed this variance and permit and recommends approval with the condition as proposed. Commissioner Brown moved to approve of the variance and the shoreline permit with the condition as recommended by the Shoreline Commission. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of the Water Quality Pr02ram Status: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward updated the Board on the funding status of the water quality programs in the County. The following items, outlined in a memo to the Board, were discussed: . 11.·:'~. 00:1 920 ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 3 Quilcene Dabob Grant: Add a task to conduct a seal contamination assessment study. The State Department of Ecology will release the remaining $13,000 in grant funds if the County will do a seal contamination assessment study. $5,000 of this amount has been spent by the County, but is being held by the DOE as retain age until all of the sampling is completed. The Board members asked what sampling has not been completed? Glen Gately reported that the water monitoring was to be done for five months during the wet season and two months during the dry season. In two years ambient sampling was done twice in February and March, and one other time in December. The stream survey work was not completed. The balance of the $13,000 ($8,000) is to be used if special conditions come up. The assessment study is a special condition. The department plans to work with the State Department of Health to do this sampling. Craig Ward reported that his recommendation is to negotiate a grant amendment to conduct a seal contamination assessment. Ludlow Grant: An extension of time will be necessary to complete the grant tasks. All of this grant funding as been spent and it is anticipated to cost another $31,500 to complete the grant tasks. The DOE has indicated that they will not let the County start on the Discovery Bay Grant until the Ludlow grant is completed. The staff costs were to be split between these to grants, but the County actually funded the work on the Ludlow grant 100% for a portion of the year. The discussion continued regarding the best way to proceed with this grant. His recommendation, Craig Ward reported, is to amend the contract to complete this grant. Discovery Bay Grant: Craig Ward reported that the total grant costs to date for the Discovery Bay grant are $14,100. The State River Basins Team has invested about $60,000 in characterizing the watershed and if the grant is cancelled the State could ask for repayment of that amount. Craig Ward suggested a revised scope of work which he feels will meet the intent of the WAC. The recommendation is to defer implemen- tation until it can be determined if it is consistent with a consolidated unit approach and to lay-off staff who have no alternate funding, Craig Ward reported. Water Quality Program Issues: Craig Ward reported that in the past, grants have supplied the majority of the funding for the water quality programs in the County. His recommendation for these programs is to consolidate staff into a small unit to be composed of a (full or part time) water quality technician, public education specialist and sanitarian. The Board concurred with Craig Ward's recommendations for each of these grants. HEARING re: County Wide Plannin2 Policies: The Board, John Clise, Mayor of the City of Port Townsend, Norma Owsley, City Councilperson and approximately 44 County residents, were present when Chairman Dennison explained that the purpose of this hearing is to take public comment on the draft county-wide planning policies as required by the Growth Management Act (SHBI025.) He reported that three public workshops were held on these draft policies to brief everyone on what these policies are about. The public record on these policies begins with this hearing and written comments will be accepted until October 1, 1992. Mter explaining the hearing process, Chairman Dennison introduced Community Services Director David Goldsmith to give an overview of the Planning Policies. David Goldsmith reported that the GMA Steering Committee (City and County) was established by resolution to oversee the development of Growth Management Act related activities. The Act requires the City and County to jointly do many things including the development of the county-wide planning policies. The planning policies layout what issues have to be dealt with, and the common language to be used when the Comprehen- sive Plan is updated. The joint City/County resolution says that a hearing will be conducted by the Steering Committee and then the Committee will review the testimony received and make a recommendation for the language of the planning policies to the City .: lsi.. ()()., '921 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 4 Council and the County Commissioners. As these policies have been developed, they have been reviewed by a group of over 100 service providers and interested people in the County, who provided input on changes which have been made to the draft. David Goldsmith reported that the following questions and concerns came up at the work- shops: Why weren't the resource lands and critical areas addressed in the County-wide Planning policies? David Goldsmith reported that these areas were left out because it was anticipated that the regulations governing those areas would be completed and adopted before these policies. That has not been the case, however. Concern that Urban Growth Areas outside the City of Port Townsend have already been established. The County-wide Planning Policies say that there are two areas that are characterized by urban development, that should be considered when developing UGA's. They are Port Ludlow and Port Hadlock. The policies go on to say that both the Port Ludlow Master Plan and the Port Hadlock Community Plan should be used as a basis to make that determination. Concern for lack of public process in the development of the County Wide Planning Policies. The County-wide Planning Policies are not intended to be the visioning statement for the County Comprehensive Plan. There has been effort put into making these policies as neutral as possible and to leave the visioning activities up to the communities. Lack of representation on the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is composed of elected officials and staff people from the City and County. The Steering Committee can be expanded. He reported that three written comments have been received to date on these policies from the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce, Puget Power and State Department of Natural Resources. Chairman Dennison then opened the hearing and asked for public comment on these draft policies. Bob Wheeler, Public Works Director. City of Port Townsend Bob Wheeler stated that the City, County and PUD have been working on an update of the Coordinated Water System Plan. No agreements have been reached in this process because there has not been a determination made regarding the actual availability of water in the City and PUD service areas. The County has also been chosen for a pilot project under the Chelan Agreement to study water availability and how water resources will be allocated for the needs of the future. The City is currently in the middle of a master planning process which is primarily focused on surface water treatment issues. Supply and demand issues win also be reviewed. The City's water service area includes the Tri Area. The amount of water that the city actually supplies to the Tri Area currently is 540 thousand gallons per day on the average, with a peak demand of 1.3 million gallons per day. The City has the capability of supplying about 1.3 million gallons of water per day out of their systems. The surface water sources provide about 800 thousand gallons per day, and the wells in the County make up the difference (500 thousand gallons) and help with peak demands. The City's current commitments for water (contractual amounts to Indian Island, Fort Flagler, the Fish Hatchery, the PUD, the School District), in the year 2002, will be over 1 million gallons per day on average and about 2.3 million gallons per day on a peak basis. There is concern for the amount of water that will be needed and the City not being able to meet those demands. There are options being considered to try and meet these needs. -\ 18~~ tI8 922 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 5 The City is already designated as an urban service area which if it is built out could have a population of 20,000 to 25,000. There probably isn't enough water for the City to supply this area at that build out, so it is difficult to see how the City will be able to provide additional water for the County areas they serve. The City will be looking at these policies in greater detail in the next week or so and will make suggestions for revisions to include water as an extremely critical factor in determining the urban service area and Urban Growth Boundaries. Dale Leavitt stated that she has three main areas of concern with this document: 1. She questioned how consistency can be achieved if the critical areas and resource lands are brought into these policies later, without repeating the public process. To look at resource lands and critical areas comprehensively it should be done now. She stated that she doesn't feel these policies are ready for public hearing yet. The following areas within the policies may be impacted: the fiscal analysis, takings, and the land available within UGA's. 2. These policies indicate that the economic development chapter of the Comprehen- sive Plan will be based primarily on the Economic Development Council's recommendation. She asked that this be broadened for more participation. There are now Chambers of Commerce in Port Townsend, Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow, as well as the Quilcene Business Club, Homebuilders Associations and other trade associations in the County to provide a broader representation for input into this chapter. The Economic Development Council tends to have primarily a Port Townsend business membership. Groups from the West End of the County should also be included 3. How Growth Management fits Jefferson County is also a concern. She reported that there are small commercial centers (and some industrial areas) scattered around the rural areas of the County (i.e. Gardiner, Brinnon, Quilcene, Coyle, Nordland, the West End). The wording in the GMA is that industrial and commercial activities must happen within an Urban Growth Area boundaries. Since the County has these types of activities scattered in the rural area, to deny these activities in those areas would be devastating to their economy. To provide for these areas is a big question mark. She then reported that legislation was passed by the House and Senate last spring that would have allowed for the siting of industrial development on natural resource lands outside UGA's. That law was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor stated, regarding his veto, that a major goal of Growth Management is to make key decisions on the location of jobs, housing, and open space, in order to make siting and building decisions easier. If local comprehensive plans do not provide adequate land for industrial or commercial growth they can be challenged before the Regional Growth Planning Hearings Board. Allowing a parallel process for industrial and commercial siting is not the intent of the Growth Management Act. She added that if the UGA boundaries aren't large enough to accommodate siting of commercial and industrial activities, it sounds like they can be challenged at the State level. More discussion is needed about how this intent can be accommodated and how it fits in Jefferson County. She added that there is a provision in the policies for consideration of three UGA's (Port Townsend, Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow), but this may mean the County should look at designating additional areas. There are a lot of unreconciled components of Growth Management which still need to be addressed. Wally Pederson stated that he doesn't see how Growth Management can be applied to areas south of Chimacum. There is no growth in that area. Guy Rudolph stated that the community plans are outdated and they need to be updated before they are used in the UGA determinations. The economic development of the UGA's is a concern because there are no plans for jobs for people getting out of school. The critical areas, resource lands, and aquifer recharge areas need to be mapped, desig- nated and included in these policies. Financial capability of the structure (policy 9) will ........ 1'8 ~,\!OO ~ ~¡ '. ,. ~ oe<: " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 6 have to be clarified because he is concerned that people will not be able to afford to live in the community after it is developed. Dick Broders stated that economic development is crucial. He doesn't feel that some of the wording of the planning policies is strong enough. He reiterated the statements of others that there may be a problem with not including the critical areas and resource lands in these policies. He doesn't feel there is fair representation on the Steering Committee because four of the members are from Port Townsend. He added that he would like to see representation from the other two proposed UGA's as well as representation from the non-UGA areas. David Cunningham explained that he would provide a copy of his notes on the draft policies. He made the following comments: Policy 1 on Urban Growth Areas: The population projections for Jefferson County are usually understated. The GMA is to accommodate and not deter growth. · Item 2, (page 4), needs to be reworded. Suggested wording "For planning purposes Urban Growth Areas will be analyzed at the low, medium and high range population projections and sized at a minimum to accommodate at least a medium projection." Item 5, (Page 5) that suggests that Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow be Urban Growth Areas. Port Ludlow is the most realistic UGA in all of Jefferson County. The infrastructure in terms of secondary sewage treatment, water supplies and other things that are necessary, are in place and ready to go, not only for current commitments, but also for expected commitment for ten years into the future. Item 9, (bottom of Page 6) - Service standards being extended beyond UGA's. They have, even in the rural areas, some public and some environmental benefits. He noted that he feels piped community water systems need to be declared as permissible beyond UGA boundaries. . . Policy 2 on Contiguous and Orderly Development. · Item 3, (page 8) talks about new development meeting certain service standards. He noted that he feels service standards need to be adopted by local ordinance. He suggested that this policy be re-written to say "as a condition of project approva~ new developments within UGA's will meet service standards adopted by local Ordinance." The discussion of interim provisions is not clear and he doesn't know what it implies. He suggested the following be added "new development will contribute its' proportionate share toward provision of urban facilities identified in the Capital Improvement Plan once adopted in compliance with the Growth Management Act." He urged that the standards be adopted properly and legally before they are applied to projects. Policy 3 on Joint County and City Planning within UGA's directs UGA's to do something. This can't be done because there is only one legally organized UGA which is the City of Port Townsend. The policy can't require or direct UGA's to do things, because the other UGA's (Port Ludlow and Port Hadlock) are not entities that can be given direction as if they were a local government. . Policy 4 dealing with siting of essential public facilities. · Item 2 (page 12) In the shopping list which suggests what type of things the Committee should consider that the line that says proximity to major transporta- tion routes, David Cunningham suggested, should be changed to say "Proximity to essential infrastructure." Eliminate Proximity to UGA because it is already covered in the line that says "land use compatibility with surrounding areas." In considering "public costs and benefits" both the capital and operations and maintenance process. In siting of essential public facilities, a criteria should be added to do with funding availability, priorities and timing. Something should also be said about fair share. The fair share location responsibilities should be considered in conjunction with the management rights. This means that if there are essential ... \IS' ~"OO 924 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 7 public services that are undesirable and those services are driven by the needs of residents of one particular area (City of Port Townsend, for example), then that particular area should accommodate those facilities and they shouldn't be thrust on the citizens of the rural areas simply because they may be conveniently placed there. Policy 5 on county-wide transportation facilities. In developing the County six year road program, David Cunningham stated that the priority of focus and funding should be to maintain or expand capacity within UGA's. The County should make a straight forward commitment to fund and shift all the capital improvements, operations and maintenance in the same direction. · Item 4 (page 15) The land use and transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan should come before the Jefferson Transit service delivery strategy. Jefferson Transit should follow suit in trying to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Item 8 (page 16) One of the items in the list of transportation elements in the Comprehensive Plan says "seek to assure the costs of new or upgraded transpor- tation facilities are borne by those who create the need for the facility." The words "in fair proportion," should be added to this statement. Item 10 should say "service standards legally adopted in compliance with the GMA. " · · Policy 6 on affordable housing. · Item 2 excludes private entities as a legitimate provider of affordable housing. If local government is going to absolve itself of the responsibility, as this policy indicates, then the private sector could also serve a role and should be included in this item. Item 3 special purpose housing. This says that this type of housing will only occur within UGA's. That doesn't seem appropriate, David Cunningham continued. Special purpose housing such as homeless shelters are needed in other areas of the County as well as in Port Townsend. We shouldn't preclude other communities from having special homeless shelters or group homes, etc. Item 7 (page 19) has some language that is not clear. ADD Item 10 to Page 19 to say that "affordable housing is acknowledged as a general public need and addressed primarily through private programs and projects. " Item 8 talks about looking at land owned by the city and county and consider it for development for low income housing. David Cunningham stated that he feels this should be given priority. · · · · Policy 7 having to do with economic development in the County: · ADD Item 5 to give priority to job development in the private sector in Jefferson County. ADD Item 6 would give priority to non-service sector job development. The recent housing study for the County made it clear that one of the reasons there is a shortage of affordable housing in the County has to do with the fact that there are many people in the County who don't make much money. There is a clear difference between those who work in the manufacturing sector and their ability to afford basic housing and those who work in the service sector and their inability to afford basic housing. We should give a priority in economic development in this County for the creation of jobs where people can make good wages. · Policy 8 discusses rural areas. This policy talks about a variety of appropriate sizes of businesses. It also needs to talk about appropriate types of businesses in rural areas. It talks about resource dependent activities and is not clear what those are and why they are targeted for rural areas. · Item 4 says that services usually associated with urban areas won't be extended to rural areas such as municipal water systems. David Cunningham reiterated that he feels community water systems in rural areas make more sense than the proliferation of shallow wells that are subject to problems. .,~ <'.. 1&.-.i 00 925, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 8 . Item 5 (page 22) should be re-written to say "in the rural areas a variety of residential should be incorporated." (page 23) For some reason transportation centers are excluded from being allowed in rural areas. David Cunningham said that he feels transportation centers should be allowed in rural areas. This doesn't mean just Jefferson Transit bus stops. . Policy 9 on fiscal analysis. · Item 3 (page 24) wording should be changed to say that a priority will be given incentives and non-regulatory options over regulations. Appendix A on service standards. This worksheet is very complicated and potent and he feels it merits at least one community workshop. He concluded by noting that he doesn't know the authority for it being included and what it implies if it is adopted with the county-wide planning policies. AI Boucher (see written statement) stated that the August 20, 1992 draft of the county- wide planning policies has an overwhelming deficiency in that nothing is said about policy guidance for drafting regulations pertaining to critical areas and resource lands. This guidance is necessary to provide balance and consistency in the development comprehen- sive plans. He added that he feels there is need for significant and extensive revision of the policy framework. He then made the following comments on specific policies: Policy 1: How can the criteria for setting UGA boundaries which includes "respect" for environmentally sensitive areas, be reconciled with Port Hadlock being classified as a Class 1 Aquifer Recharge area as indicated in the draft Critical Area ordinance? Another criteria for setting UGA's says that it is important to "avoid constraints that would induce leapfrogging." He asked if this should read "avoid market forces" rather than market constraints? Is this to be accomplished by mandatory regulation or through an incentive mechanism? Policy 4: This policy states that a definition of "essential public facilities" will be developed. He asked how a policy can be developed in the absence of a definition? In paragraph 4 there is reference to "facilities by municipalities" which he feels should read ''facilities by UGA's." Policy 6: Mr. Boucher asked how a policy on affordable housing can be developed without a definition being developed first? Paragraph 2 refers to "public assisted housing" which Mr. Boucher pointed out can mean several things. He asked why profit-making entities are excluded from this list? He added that paragraph 7 is empty of content without a definition of affordable housing. Policy 7: Paragraph 1 states that the EDC strategy is to be used as a reference in updating the Comprehensive Plan. There is no mention of decision making in a market economy. Paragraph 4 indicates that the Port's legislative authority would be used as a tool to implement industry and trade strategies. This is in conflict with paragraph #1, but it also endorses public sector involvement in a market based economy. Policy 9: The policy title refers only to fiscal analysis. AI Boucher stated that he feels that the title should be Fiscal Impact Analysis. The word impact describes the nature of fiscal analysis. The analysis should include both short and long term impacts and cover both capital and operating costs. Mr. Boucher asked why Paragraph 2 which deals with the taking clause is included under fiscal impact analysis? One of the GMA goals is that private property is not to be taken for public use without just compensation. This has policy implications apart from the constitutional issues of takings. Policy 10: AI Boucher stated that he feels this may be the policy where guidance for drafting regulations for critical areas and resource lands can be placed. Jim Larimar.Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce reviewed and expanded on comments made in the letter from the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce dated September 10, 4·!i8~_. 00 926 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 9 1992. He added that UGA's have to be established before any comprehensive planning is done. In Policy 1, Paragraph 5 (page 5) recognizes that Port Hadlock should be a UGA and the points made in paragraph 4 (requiring consideration of urban development facilities within the next 20 years) supports their point that the Tri Area Plan should be updated to include a much larger area than it does at present. Another major concern is to have representation proportional to the population of the Tri Area. Roger Short stated that he is concerned about the makeup of the Steering Committee. He feels there needs to be broader representation, because currently four of the six members are from Port Townsend. Resource lands and critical areas need to be addressed in the County-wide planning policies. Dana Roberts read and submitted a statement. He said that he feels that true success for Growth Management in Jefferson County can only come from development controls being written that will produce win/win results. He feels this means adopting standards for development that make it easiest to follow the guidance of nature. He then reviewed his comments on: Policy 1 (last paragraph on pages 5 and 6) and Policy 2 (last paragraph, page 10): He feels that a "users pay" policy is justifiable. It would put all prospective residents in such areas on notice that since the services have to be provided, those who create the clear need for them, must shoulder the burden. Policy 4: The way to forestall the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) reaction to needed new facilities is to start making them desireable neighbors, by designing them far above minimal development standards. Policy 6: He suggested that everything from minimum space requirements for dwellings and yards to construction codes results in costlier housing. These things should be reviewed. It should be made easier to develop denser, smaller, cheaper but still interesting housing. He added that the public subsidy concept could be applied to the construction end of the development rather than subsidizing throughout residents' occupancy. He concluded by saying that if private enterprise falls short, a public agency should be considered to do the job of supplying a broader range of housing options. Fred Tuso stated that he is concerned about the lack of rural representation on the GMA Steering Committee. The Board needs to remember that the GMA goals encourage economic development opportunity in the UGA and the rural areas. He added that he is anxious to see a timely and fair permit process. The goals also encourage the retention of open space and development of recreation opportunities which he feels must be made easier in this County. He questioned how the capacity of Urban Growth Areas will be sized as stated in Policy 1 (item 2, page 4), while Policy 2 states that the full range of governmental services will be provided within UGA's, including community water. The City says that is impossible with regard to water services. The major UGA is saying it can not carry 100% of the growth. There are some serious problems that have to be worked out before this can go forward at all. Steve Havden advised that he will hand in his written comments. He noted that the introduction includes paraphrasing of the goals of GMA and important points have been left out. He reviewed the goals he feels need to be added to the introduction and the following items in the policies: Policy 1, Page 5, Paragraph 5: He feels is inconsistent because the Tri Area Comm- unity Plan would be used as a reference in delineating the Port Hadlock UGA. The Tri Area Community Plan includes Irondale and Chimacum and he noted that he is not sure that residents of Chimacum would want to be included in the Port Hadlock UGA. The same thing is a concern with using the Port Ludlow Master Plan. That Master Plan was developed by Pope and Talbot and is not contiguous with the common definition of the Port Ludlow community. Some people outside the master plan area will be interested in what the delineation of the UGA looks like. WL tB ,.' Of) 927 , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 10 In Paragraph 8, Page 6, it is suggested that UGA's be made large enough to avoid market constraints that would induce leap frogging. He said that it doesn't take a lot of land to prevent leap frogging. This policy needs to be thought out more carefully. Policy 2, Page 8, paragraph 2. Environmentally sensitive areas need to be included in the list of elements to be included in UGA plans for both incorporated and unincor- porated UGA's. Policy 8, paragraph 5. He stated that he is not sure what the sentence means. Is the term rural community meant to be synonymous with rural area (with regard to densities)? This policy doesn't give an indication of what kind of densities to expect. The consideration of appropriate parcel sizes has a lot to do with the intent of avoiding incompatible uses. This should also take into consideration projected populations. Policy 9 on Fiscal Analysis needs to include the following: "Each UGA and the county will adopt strategies to utilize existing taxing mechanisms such as impact fees and real estate excise tax to mitigate the costs of ftl.ture public infrastructure for existing population." He suggested that another policy that be added which says "Fiscal impact analysis of actions and regulations implementing GMA will include analysis of the costs of unregulated growth." He noted that there needs to be an additional policy developed that insures coordination between UGA's and the County in the critical areas. What are called critical areas in the County are called environmentally sensitive areas in the City. There are watersheds in the City that extend out into the county and there are environmentally sensitive areas in the County that, if not properly dealt with, will impact the City. He concluded by noting that overall there are a lot of statements in this draft that indicate that the policy is that a policy will be developed. That's not a policy. Robert Greenwav said that regarding the absence of any mention of the critical areas and the resource lands, he feels it is absolutely crucial to have clear policy coming from the Board of advisors to those who will be developing the policies and ordinance language. There needs to be clarity about the public involvement process. A clear statement of how, where and why the public is being involved in this process is necessary. Janine Havden said that as she understands this the low estimate of population growth is to be accommodated within the UGA's. It is not clear what population must be accom- modated outside the UGA's. She feels the citizens of this County were clear from the survey conducted a year ago (Jefferson 2000 survey) that they wanted the County to grow slowly or not at all. She suggested that the low estimate (8,000 population growth) be used as the upper limit of growth to be accommodated. Population growth is controllable by controlling the extension of community services. She suggested that the County bite the bullet and control growth by using community services in that way. Relating to concurrency these policies, in some sections, say that the services will be provided concurrently with permitting a development and in other sections it indicates that as long as there's a plan for the provision of services development will be allowed. If growth is going to be controlled by the provision of services through infrastructure, then the policy needs to be more explicit about infrastructure and how that relates directly to the availability of lands for development. Another concern, Janine Hayden noted is that there is no mention of impact fees. She asked if the white paper portion of the policies will be adopted with the policies? She noted that she is concerned about a lot of the wording in the white paper. The Chairman answered that the white paper is an analysis of the County-wide Planning Policies and is informational in nature. He added that only the policies will be adopted. She then suggested that the existing Subdivision Ordinance mayor may not agree with what is in these policies. She suggested that a clause be included in the policies that .. 18_80 928 · , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 11 would automatically update the Subdivision Ordinance to conform with them once they are adopted. Quentin Goodrich said that he supports the need for updating the Tri Area Community Plan. The delineation of UGA boundaries would be better set by utilizing the framework proposed by the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce. He expressed concern about Policy 10 and the representation on the GMA Steering Committee. He feels the identified UGA's (port Ludlow and the Tri Area) and the rural areas should be represented on the Steering Committee. He added that he is shocked at Policy 7 which says that the EDC strategy will be the reference for updating the Comprehensive Plan. This is delegating public respon- sibility to a private organization. The EDC is a private organization that is not subject to public accountability in the same manner as County and City governments. He doesn't feel that public policy should be to adopt a privately developed plan. Julie Jaman stated that she is concerned about the paraphrasing of the GMA goals. Her comments on the policies are: Policy 1: This policy should reference watersheds. She feels that reference should be made to retaining natural features such as exceptional scenic, recreation and ecological areas. Policy 2: References need to be made to critical areas. Policy 3, Page 11: The reference to fully contained communities says that they will not be addressed in the comprehensive planning process, but it does not say that they will not be permitted at this time. She added that if they are not going to be ad- dressed, then it should be explicit that they are going to be prevented. Policy 4, Page 12: There is a reference that a subcommittee of Jefferson 2000 will be appointed. She asked who will be asked to participate on this committee, and if it is subject to public process? Policy 5: There are many things that can be done to mitigate the degradation of air quality and roadside erosion and siltation and those need to be included in these policies. Minimums need to be identified for rural densities. A new policy needs to be inserted that deals with the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped lands. She asked about the public procedure for areas without community plans (such as the Quimper Peninsula)? Chairman Dennison replied that it boils down to a definition of boundaries. The Jefferson 2000 survey, Julie Jaman added, has somehow slipped beside the way here. It has a lot of relevance to what happens to the future of this County. Barbara Fisk stated that she has heard somewhere (possibly on the news) that the impact fees that entities charge for development have been declared unconstitutional. She suggested that the County check into this before they consider using impact fees as part of the funding to implement the GMA. Guv Rudolph asked how the questionnaire given out with these policies is going to be used? David Goldsmith reported that he had handed it out at the workshops to get feedback on ways to communicate with the public for both input and output. It was not intended to be a scientific survey. Bill Leavitt agreed with others that have said that they are concerned about the imbalance on the GMA Steering Committee. He asked what the Commissioners plan on doing between now and the end of the year, since next year there will be new people serving as Commissioners? Chairman Dennison stated that the Board will continue with what was planned originally to try and meet the GMA deadlines set by the State. ~Cl. '~s. t~·&! 929 · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 1992 Page: 12 Kate Jenks said many people have stated that they would like to see the critical areas addressed. She asked how the critical areas will be addressed? Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't know what will be done with the resource lands and critical areas, but he hopes the Board will discuss whether to include them in the County-wide Planning Policies. Fred Tuso stated that he didn't get a Jefferson 2000 survey and he feels it is sad that references are being made to it especially since the "massive growth" in the County has happened since that survey was completed. The people who have moved into the County within the last two years, have had little or no input into this process. Barbara Fisk asked if this the last meeting to comment on GMA? Chairman Dennison reported that this hearing is only on the County-wide Planning Policies. The GMA process will continue. AI Boucher asked if the County intends to hold hearings on the draft critical areas and resources lands ordinance? Chairman Dennison answered that a hearing is required before an ordinance can be adopted. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS t\1., t8~. œ, 930