HomeMy WebLinkAbout070 01
c.. n~~ì $7.tX).o/
p.~J. I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
In the matter of formalizing a more)
detailed 'Scope of Services' for )
Tasks V and VI of the Tri-Area/ )
Glen Cove Special Study )
RESOLUTION NO, 70-01
WHEREAS, completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove 'Special Study' as soon as
possible is a top priority; and,
WHEREAS, completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study is a
precondition to numerous other land use and policy decisions to be made in the short-
term future; and,
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners chose a 'Preferred Alternative' for the
regions of the unincorporated County known as Tri-Area and Glen Cove in April 2001,
as was required by Tasks I through IV of the Special Study; and,
WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative includes the possibility that Glen Cove as
well as all or part of the Tri-Area may be designated as 'urban growth areas,' as that term
is defined in the State Growth Management Act, codified at Chapter 36.70A. RCW; and,
WHEREAS, a decision on the Preferred Alternative was a necessary prerequisite
to determining the scope of what must occur under the 'umbrella' of Tasks V and VI of
the Special Study; and,
WHEREAS, much of Task VI was described as "To be developed" in the initial
Scope of Services dated September 1997 for the Special Study because the type and
nature of the products and sub-tasks that would need to be completed as part of Task VI
were so heavily dependent on which alternative outcome became the County
Commissioners' Preferred Alternative; and,
WHEREAS, County's staff has revised and supplemented the extent and type of
sub-tasks and products that will be completed within Tasks V and VI; and,
WHEREAS, the revised Scope of Services, which now includes the more detailed
and comprehensive description of Tasks V and VI, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
"A," has been reviewed and considered by the Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee prior to the date this Resolution is adopted; and,
Resolution No. 70...cr:e: Formalizing a more detailed "Scope of 'Services" for Tasks V and VI of
the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study Page 2
WHEREAS, Tasks I through IV of the Special Study were based upon a set of
assumptions, and that the Commissioners acknowledge the fact that the data changes;
and,
WHEREAS, one of the results to be obtained from Task VI was and is "detailed
subarea plans," and the term "sub-area plan" is not defined in statute, regulation or
published Hearings Board opinion; and,
WHEREAS, a "sub-area plan" is most adequately defined as a plan that
complements and supplements an adopted and existing Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the substance and context of the "sub-area plans" that will be created
for Glen Cove and the Tri-Area is described in some detail within the revised Scope of
Services for the Special Study (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution) and include, solely by
way of example, a Land Use Map that shows the zoning districts that might be enacted
within the boundaries of an urban growth area and the related proposed text amendments
to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a sub-area plan that fulfills the requirements listed in the text of the
revised Scope of Services for the Special Study will be sufficient to supplement and
complement the County's Comprehensive Plan and thus presumably is also compliant
with the scant Hearings Board precedents regarding subarea plans; and,
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners have set November 19,2001 as the date
by which the Special Study should be completed; and,
WHEREAS, County staff has stated that the Special Study can be completed by
the target date set by the County Commissioners; and,
WHEREAS, numerous opportunities for comment by the public on the eventual
land use outcomes will be provided both before and after the date chosen above
(November 19, 2001) for completion of the Special Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the elected Board of County
Commissioners in and for Jefferson County as follows:
1. That the revised and supplemented Scope of Services for the Tri-Area/Glen Cove
Special Study attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A is adopt and accept;" and
2. That the Special Study will be completed and returned to them for consideration
on or before November 19, 2001; and
Resolution N07.DdlJ!e: Formalizing a more detailed "Scope of 'Services" for Tasks V and VI of
the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study Page 3
3. That County staff is directed and authorized to enter into such contracts and
agreements as are necessary to implement the directives listed in this Resolution.
AfPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2001
\
~ . y r ;0.... JEFFERSON COUNTY
, ... ". "
. ~ j . .. . '. "J \ BOARD OF COMMISSIONE
.....~\" ',,,...,0,_ d
S . ""'1- . \ ~ ~
EAL: "'I.. \: ·
., ft
.,~ '.1 ~. ,'" . ; ~ , Glen Huntingfor ,
.... \, \ ... .,
, ~ '
A TrEST. · ., . ... ,. < ¡ - .
i' \.-__ ,_..:....J · -' . ...,./
'-...: " J·,t·" ' .. ~/15an Titterness, M
..... ", ....-"' .. ~
c1cma
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
.-..--
~--
TRI-AREA & GLEN COVE SPECIAL STUDY: SCOPE OF SERVICES
(REVISED 8/15/01)
A. INTRODUCTION
The Draft Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was released on February 24,
1997. Although the Draft Plan includes goals and policies intended to guide
growth and development in the urban and rural areas of the county, it proposes
that the final land use designations for the Tri-Area and Glen Cove will be
addressed through studies and plan amendments following initial plan adoption.
This scope of services describes the necessary information, analyses, and
alternatives comparison that are needed to provide a sound foundation for these
important planning decisions. Presently, it is anticipated that the Special Study
will be completed in time for the first annual amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan (Le., March 1999).
B. OBJECTIVES
This Special Study has the following objectives:
1. To supplement the Comprehensive Plan's existing conditions inventory
for commercial and manufacturing lands and to provide a reasonable
approach for designating the amount, type, and location of these lands to
serve the projected population and employment base.
2. To supplement the Comprehensive Plan's residential lot capacity analysis
for the Tri-Area based on parcel ownership patterns, and to provide
estimates of the area's population holding capacity under both an urban
and rural planning area designation.
3. To develop a regional economic analysis and forecast that describes
the amount, type, and location of commercial and manufacturing uses that
may reasonably be expected in east Jefferson County during the 20-year
life of the Comprehensive Plan.
4, To develop future land use alternatives for community review based on
the revised commercial and manufacturing lands inventory, estimates of
commercial and manufacturing land use need, the regional economic
forecast, and the Tri-Area residential land capacity analysis.
5. To determine the size and location of future urban growth areas and to
ensure an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land to promote
economic development opportunities, meet the service and employment
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
1
AUGUST 15, 2001
needs of county residents, and comply with the Growth Management Act
(GMA) and County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP),
6. To adequately assess the environmental and social impacts of the various
alternatives in order to provide a legally defensible foundation for
informed decision-making,
7. To undertake fiscal impact and capital facilities analyses that assess the
ability of the community to fund necessary public facilities and services
under the various land use alternatives.
8. To provide opportunities for meaningful public participation that
result in the selection of an alternative that will implement the
community's vision for future growth and development in east Jefferson
County.
9. Based on the "preferred" alternative, to prepare detailed capital facilities
plan amendments that describe how and when necessary improvements
will be funded and constructed.
10. To prepare necessary amendments to the goals, policies and implementing
measures of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency with the
"preferred" alternative.
11. To fulfill the requirements of the GMA.
12. To identify additional studies and analyses which may be needed to
implement the "preferred" alternative, such as feasibility studies for
incorporation or annexation of urban growth areas, tax revenue sharing
agreements, or other inter-local agreements to facilitate the provision of
urban public services.
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES & WORK PRODUCTS
REQUIRED
County staff will be primarily responsible for identifying specific supporting
studies and analyses required for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,
specific topic areas that need to be addressed within such studies and analyses,
and the specific provisions of the Comprehensive Plan which require revision.
1. The consultant(s) will review relevant planning documents to understand
the County's current planning position including: the Draft and Final
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; relevant analyses supporting the
Plan; applicable provisions of the GMA; relevant decisions of the Growth
Management Hearings Boards; and the County-wide Planning Policy for
Jefferson County (CWPP) (see Attachment A - Selected References).
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
2
AUGUST 15, 2001
2. Based upon the review of the documents listed above, the consultant(s)
will prepare supporting analyses and recommended Comprehensive Plan
amendments consistent with staff direction and the tasks detailed in this
Special Study scope of services.
3. The consultant(s) will identify and review superior approaches for
projecting commercial and land use demand and need, innovative
approaches for designating areas of more intensive rural development
(consistent with ESHB 6094) as well as innovative land use management
techniques for the designation of unincorporated urban growth areas.
4. The consultant(s) will identify additional contingency funding beyond the
contract budget for unexpected issues, research and analysis currently
unidentified, providing additional staff support in preparing materials for
public review, or attending additional public meetings.
D. INTENDED AUDIENCE
The intended audience for these work products are the citizens of Jefferson
County, the Jefferson County Planning Commission, the Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners, and the Joint Growth Management Committee.
The public will be involved at early and key decision points in the Special Study
process. The public participation program will have three objectives:
1. To explain the how the GMA requirements shape the basic parameters of
the Special Study, and to describe how the specific work products address
these requirements.
2. To provide opportunities for meaningful public participation in order to
gain a better understanding of the preferences of community members,
landowners, developers, and other key stakeholders.
2. To work with county staff and officials to develop as much community
consent as possible regarding the ultimate recommendations of the Special
Study.
E. ESTIMATED BUDGET
Jefferson County has allocated $87,000 for the completion of Tasks I through IV
of this Special Study project (see Attachment B - Special Study Task & Budget
Summary). Because the nature and extent of the work under Tasks V and VI
cannot be fully discerned at this early stage, no specific budget for these tasks has
yet been identified. The specific sub-tasks and budgets for these elements will be
detailed during the Special Study process. As noted in Section (C)(4), above, the
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
3
AUGUST 15, 2001
consultant(s) is (are) required to identify additional contingency funding beyond
the contract budget to cover potential additional consultant time and costs.
F. ANTICIPATED PROJECT TIME-LINE & COMPLETION
DATE
The date targeted for adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is
March 9, 1998. The Special Study will be completed as part of the first annual
Comprehensive Plan review and amendment cycle (see Attachment C - Key
Dates & Project Milestones). To meet this time-line the following task
completion dates are proposed:
1. The existing conditions analysis, Tri-Area residential land capacity
analysis, and the projected future commercial and manufacturing land use
demand and need will be ready for public review and comment by
April 24, 1998 (Le., Task I).
2. The regional economic forecast, and economic development scenarios
will be ready for public review and comment by May 29,1998
(Le., Task II).
3. The alternatives for community and environmental review will be
available for public review and comment by July 2, 1998 (Le.,
Task III),
4, The draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) will
be issued by September 2, 1998 (Le., Task IV).
5. A preferred alternative will be selected by October 16, 1998. Draft
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and land use map will be
prepared and available for public review by December 18, 1998, with
Planning Commission recommendations and Board adoption occurring by
mid-March, 1999 (Le., Task V).
G. MEETINGS & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
County staff will be primarily responsible for the public participation aspects of
the Special Study project, and will have assistance from the consultant(s) in
supporting this effort. The consultant(s) will attend staff team meetings (typically
not more than one per week). Additional meetings anticipated during the course
of the project include:
1. One (1) Joint Growth Management Committee meeting and two (2) public
workshops to review the revised existing conditions information, Tri-Area
residential capacity analysis, preliminary projections of commercial and
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
4
AUGUST 15, 2001
manufacturing land demand and need, the regional economic forecast and
the commercial and manufacturing land use alternatives,
2. One (1) joint Board of CommissionerslPlanning Commission public
workshop to assist in determining the scope of the DSEIS and to accept
comments on the alternatives proposed for review, and up to two (2)
additional public workshops to accept comments on the scope of the
DSEIS, if necessary.
3, Four (4) joint Board of CommissionerslPlanning Commission citizen
workshops, two (2) Planning Commission hearings, and one (1) Board of
Commissioners hearing to accept public comments on the DSEIS and to
identify a "preferred" alternative for further refinement.
4. Following preparation of the draft Comprehensive Plan amendments, the
consultant(s) will attend up to six (6) Planning Commission meetings and
up to six (6) Board meetings during the formal public review and
comment period on the "preferred" alternative.
H. SCOPE OF WORK
Task I: Develop Supplemental Existing Conditions data for Commercial and
Manufacturing Lands, Prepare Estimates of Commercial and Manufacturing Land
Demand and Need, and Supplement the Tri-Area Residential Capacity Analysis
A. Purpose: To identify and fill gaps in the existing inventory of commercial and
manufacturing land uses, and the Tri-Area residential capacity analysis. This
information is critical for two reasons, First, it will provide baseline information
required to determine the amount of commercial and manufacturing land needed
to accommodate the needs of the projected population and employment base, and
to facilitate economic development activities in northeastern Jefferson County.
This data will be instrumental in determining the viability of commercial and
manufacturing areas in the Tri-Area and at Glen Cove, and in determining the
feasibility of urban growth area designation(s). Second, information on Tri-Area
residential capacity is critical to identify an appropriate land use designation for
the community (i.e., rural activity center or urban growth area),
B. Sub-Tasks: The consultant(s) will complete the following sub-tasks:
1. Identify Deficiencies in the Existing Inventory of Residential,
Commercial and Manufacturing Lands - In completing this task, the
consultant(s) will review the Land Use and Rural elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, and other relevant data.
2. Collect Additional Data to Supplement the Land Use Inventory - The
consultant(s) will work with County Public Works, Planning, and
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
5
AUGUST 15, 2001
Integrated Data Management System staff to address deficiencies in the
commercial and manufacturing lands inventory, and the Tri-Area
residential capacity analysis. Due to G.I.S. data limitations, this may
entail additional field surveys, as well as review of Assessor's parcel data.
a. At a minimum, the inventory of commercial and manufacturing
land will identify the acreage and percent of each zone that is
vacant, partially developed, under-developed, and developed, as
well as the amount of each zone subject to significant development
constraints;
b, The Tri-Area residential capacity analysis will estimate the
number of dwelling units and population that could be
accommodated under two scenarios: 1) an urban scenario that
anticipates the provision of a full range of urban public facilities
and services; and 2) a rural scenario that anticipates rural levels of
service, as well as rezoning and consolidation of substandard lots
in common ownership to prevent further non-rural development.
In particular, the analysis will examine whether rezoning and
consolidation of substandard lots in common ownership could
effectively arrest the trend towards suburban residential densities,
or whether the parcel ownerships are fragmented to such a degree
that continued suburban residential infm development is
unavoidable.
3. Prepare Preliminary Projections of Commercial and Manufacturing
Land Demand and Need· Based upon the revised existing conditions
data the consultant(s) will prepare preliminary land use projections for the
twenty year planning period. These projections will be tied to the
anticipated population and employment base at the end of the planning
period, and will apply an accepted methodology that is consistent with
DCTED recommendations (see Preparing the Heart of Your
Comprehensive Plan: "A Land Use Element Guide", June 1993).
4. Allocate the Projected Land Use Demand by Planning Area -
Following completion of the aggregate, county-wide, projections of
commercial and manufacturing land demand and need, the consultant(s)
will disaggregate the projected land use demand by Planning Area,
consistent with the adopted Population Forecast and Allocation for
Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend.
5. Prepare a White Paper. Upon completion of the existing conditions
inventory and preliminary projections of commercial and manufacturing
land use need, the consultant(s) will prepare a White Paper documenting
the relevant data, assumptions, projections and conclusions, The White
Paper will include a discussion of potential measures to reduce any
potential residential land surplus in the Tri-Area, and the anticipated
effectiveness of such measures. The White Paper will include an
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
6
AUGUST 15, 2001
--
executive summary of the data, assumptions, and conclusions and will be
supported by summary tables.
6. Attend Public Meetings - Upon completion of the White Paper, the
consultant(s) will attend one (1) Joint Growth Management Committee
Meeting and up to two (2) additional public meetings to present, discuss,
and answer questions about the data, assumptions, and conclusions of
Task I.
C. Products: The products of this task will provide a starting point for assessing the
amount of commercial and manufacturing land needed to serve the projected
population and employment base. The products of this task will also provide
important information on current and potential future non-rural development
trends in the Tri-Area. The White Paper will assist the public and decision-
makers in determining whether the County's existing commercial and
manufacturing land base should be increased, decreased, and/or reallocated to
different geographic areas, and information on an appropriate land use
designation for the Tri-Area (Le., urban growth area, or rural activity center). The
White Paper will also document the County has done its "homework" in
compliance with GMA requirements, Specifically the White Paper will be
comprised of:
1. A set of maps illustrating each commercial and manufacturing zone,
containing overlays depicting areas of each zone that are vacant, partially
used, under-developed, developed, and subject to significant development
constraints. A map will also be developed that shows Tri-Area Planning
Area parcel ownership boundaries, highlighting lots that could be
consolidated to reduce the area's potential residential lot surplus,
2. A narrative existing conditions report (supplemented by summary tables)
describing the amount of commercial and manufacturing land in each zone
that is vacant, partially used, under-developed, developed, and subject to
significant development constraints. The existing conditions report will
also include information on the residential land capacity of the Tri-Area
assuming both an urban and rural planning designation.
3. A narrative land use analysis (supplemented by summary tables) of the
amount of commercial and manufacturing land needed to serve the
projected population and employment base, This analysis will address
projected need and demand County-wide, as well as within each Planning
Area, based upon the adopted population forecast. The analysis will
include a section that assesses whether rezoning and consolidation of
substandard lots in common ownership in the Tri-Area could arrest
suburban development of the area, or whether the number and pattern of
parcel ownerships suggest that suburbanization is inevitable.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
7
AUGUST 15, 2001
4, Consultant(s) staffing of three (3) public meetings, including preparation
of any required hand out materials.
D. Timeline: Task I will be completed no later than Friday, April 24, 1998.
E. Required Qualifications: The consultant(s) should have recently demonstrated:
1. Experience with land use planning and analysis related to comprehensive
planning under the GMA.
2. Experience with small jurisdictions in rural and/or ex-urban settings
including experience in permitting of small-scale commercial and
manufacturing development.
3. A thorough understanding of GMA requirements, recent amendments to
the GMA (Le., ESHB 6094), and Growth Management Hearings Board
decisions relating to the designation of urban growth areas, rural densities,
and the provision of services for both urban and rural land uses.
4. An ability to communicate in both verbal and written forms the results of
the analysis with controversial and diverse clients and community groups.
References that address these specific attributes should be provided for work in
the past five years.
F. Estimated Bud~et: $16,000 (One Senior Planner @ $75.00 per hour for five full
weeks - 40 hrs. x 5 = 200 hrs. x 75 = $15,000 + $1,000 in expenses).
Task II: Preparation of a Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast for East
Jefferson County
A. Purpose: To identify the types, amount and location of commercial and
manufacturing development that may reasonably be expected to occur in eastern
Jefferson County during the course of the planning period. This information is
needed to develop a range of commercial and manufacturing land use alternatives
that represent workable choices for community and environmental review, In
particular, the forecast will focus on potential growth scenarios for coordinated
economic development of the Tri-Area, Glen Cove, and the Jefferson County
International Airport.
B. Sub-Tasks: When complete, the following tasks will provide a solid foundation
for economic development planning in east Jefferson County. The tasks combine
an assessment of the current and future Jefferson County real estate market, an
assessment of local and regional influences, and an overview of other factors
affecting the feasibility of development in the Tri-Area, Glen Cove and at the
Jefferson County International Airport. The final product will be an economic
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
8
AUGUST 15, 2001
development planning resource document that will assist the public and decision-
makers in making informed decisions about the viability of commercial and
manufacturing lands in east Jefferson County. The following sub-tasks will be
completed:
1. Review Existing Market Data . The purpose of this task is to obtain an
understanding of the nature, form and availability of existing county data,
including information and analyses generated for the Comprehensive Plan
and plans of other jurisdictions and public entities. This consultant(s) will
meet with representatives of the "task force" and other private sector
groups. In addition, the consultant(s) will participate in a staff-guided tour
of the study area(s) to assure the clearest possible understanding of
community's circumstances,
2. Analyze the Real Estate Market for a Mixture of Uses in East
Jefferson County· This following sub-tasks will be completed:
a. Gather data from local public and private sources with information
on economic, demographic and real estate or land uses;
b. Interview persons in public agencies and private entities
to obtain information regarding the east Jefferson County real
estate market generally, the Special Study area in particular, and to
obtain information on past, current and future trends and
conditions;
c. Identify and examine comparable areas in the western Washington
region; and
d. Analyze local real estate records, state and federal demographics,
housing, economic and employment data, retail sales information,
ferry and highway traffic information and other indicators of the
amount and patterns of growth and development in east Jefferson
County.
3. Identify Local Development Opportunities· In order to determine the
amount, timing and types of commercial and manufacturing development
reasonable and possible within the Tri-Area, Glen Cove, and at the
Jefferson County International Airport, the following sub-tasks will be
completed:
a. Review all background data information, data and reports,
especially for transportation, capital facilities and utility capacities;
b. Review information developed in Task I regarding the quantity of
land available for commercial and manufacturing use, trends in
commercial and manufacturing land use, and the projected demand
and need for commercial and manufacturing land in east Jefferson
County; and
c. Discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses and perceptions
regarding the development potential of the Tri-Area, Glen Cove
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
9
AUGUST 15, 2001
-'..~-.-
and the Jefferson County International Airport with persons who
have data, insight or experience in the area.
4. Prepare a Market Analysis Report - This report will summarize the
results, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the market analysis
research and provide estimates of the expected amount, timing and
characteristics of potential commercial and manufacturing development in
east Jefferson County. The report will include an assessment of the
viability of commercial and manufacturing development in the Tri-Area,
Glen Cove and at the Jefferson County International Airport. This
assessment will provide a realistic evaluation of the opportunities and
challenges for future economic growth and development, including an
identification of significant development constraints and their strategic
implications.
5. Prepare Economic Development Alternatives - Based on the tasks
elements outlined in Task II (B)(1-4), above, the consultant(s) will
formulate several alternative commercial and manufacturing land use
scenarios for the Tri-Area, Glen Cove and the Jefferson County
International Airport. These alternatives will be distinguished as to the
range, scale and amount of uses recommended, the potential timing of
uses, and potential constraints or risk factors. The positive and negative
aspects (Le., constraints, challenges and opportunities) of each alternative
will be analyzed, especially in relation to their fiscal impacts.
6. Prepare Estimates of the Potential Financial Returns to the
Community - The future development of the Tri-Area, Glen Cove, and
the Jefferson County International Airport study areas may have
significant implications to the community for collecting taxes and
providing public services or facilities to the area and future users. This
task will analyze the commercial and manufacturing land use alternatives
for the Tri-Area, Glen Cove and the Jefferson County International
Airport and their implications for public budgets. The following sub-tasks
will be completed:
a. Prepare a detailed description of alternative size and land use
patterns for future development in each of the affected areas;
b. Estimate the amounts of County and other local tax revenues that
would be generated or associated with different patterns of
potential development in the affected areas;
c. Estimate of the public service costs and infrastructure costs
associated with the alternatives;
d, Prepare an analysis of potential net returns to the local government
serving the area or responsible for providing utilities and other
services.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
10
AUGUST 15, 2001
7. Attend Public Meetings - Upon completion of the Market Analysis
Report, the consultant(s) will attend one (1) Joint Growth Management
Committee Meeting and up to two (2) additional public meetings to
present, discuss, and answer questions about the Final Report developed
under Task II.
C. Products: The reports prepared under this task will provide critical building
blocks for Task III - Development of Tri-Area and Commercial and
Manufacturing Land Use Alternatives.
1. The main product of this task is a Market Analysis Report that will
assist in refining the estimates of commercial and manufacturing land
needed to serve the projected population and employment base. The
report will assist County staff and the consultant(s) in developing
alternative commercial and manufacturing land use scenarios for more
detailed planning and environmental analysis. Accordingly, the Final
Report will include suggested commercial and manufacturing land use
alternatives based on the Market Analysis Report. The Market Analysis
Report will also include an assessment of the fiscal impacts of the
alternatives.
2, In addition to the preparation of the Market Analysis Report, the
consultant(s) will staff not more than three (3) public meetings, and
prepare any required hand out materials.
D. Timeline: Task II will be completed no later than Friday, May 29,1998.
E. Required Qualifications: The consultant(s) should have recently demonstrated:
1. Experience with economic, real estate, financial or land use analysis
related to the GMA and hearings board decisions.
2. Experience with small jurisdictions in rural and/or ex-urban settings,
especially jurisdictions with recreation, tourism, second home and other
natural resources and attractions, and related economic activities,
3. Experience and/or credibility with the private real estate development
community, local economic development strategies and programs or
public finance.
4, An ability to communicate in both verbal and written forms the results of
the analysis with controversial and diverse clients and community groups.
5. An ability to differentiate economic and real estate analysis for public and
private planning purposes and short and long term planning horizons.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
11
AUGUST 15, 2001
References that address these specific attributes should be provided for work in
the past five years,
F. Estimated Bud~et: $21,500 (One Regional Economist @ $100.00 per hour for
five full weeks - 40hrs. x 5 = 200 hrs. x 100 = $20,000 + $1,500 in expenses).
Task III: Development of Tri-Area and Commercial and Manufacturing Land Use
Alternatives
A. Purpose: The Washington State Legislature recently enacted amendments
to the GMA (i.e., ESHB 6094) that affect the potential designation of areas of
more intensive rural development (e.g., rural crossroads, rural activity centers)
and urban growth areas. While the Comprehensive Plan anticipated a number of
these amendments; additional analysis is required to support final designation of
commercial and manufacturing lands in east Jefferson County, and the final
planning designation of the Tri-Area (i.e., urban growth area or rural activity
center). Based upon the information and analyses completed under Tasks I and II,
completion of this task will provide a range of commercial and manufacturing
and Tri-Area land use alternatives for community and environmental review. The
alternatives will frame the discussion of how the County can best promote
economic development while complying with the mandates of the GMA and
CWPP.
B. Sub-Tasks: The consultant(s) will complete the following sub-tasks:
1. Develop Land Use Alternatives - Based on the data and analyses
compiled in Tasks I and II, the consultant(s) will develop a range of
alternatives for the the Tri-Area planning designation and the amount and
location of commercial and manufacturing lands in east Jefferson County.
The consultant(s) will identify the locations and extent of potential rural
activity centers, and urban growth areas, based upon the projected regional
market analysis for such lands over the planning period.
2. Review and Integrate Existing Alternatives - To the greatest extent
feasible, the alternatives should be based upon land use scenarios
developed previously during Jefferson County's GMA planning efforts
and those developed in the Final Market Analysis Report. Particular
attention will be paid to alternatives contained within the Draft Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and the DEIS, the land use alternatives
prepared for the Glen Cove Special Study Area contained within the Draft
Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and DEIS, and the land use
alternatives prepared for the Jefferson County Airport Master Plan. Each
alternative scenario will include an examination of the potential to
accommodate the projected population and employment projection in a
manner consistent with the County's specific Planning Area population
allocations and the findings of the Market Analysis Report.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
12
AUGUST 15, 2001
3. Assess the Consistency of the Alternatives with the GMA and the
CWPP - The consultant(s) will prepare a written analysis of the
alternatives consisting of the following:
a. A description of how any proposed rural activity center
designations are consistent with recent amendments to the
GMA (Le., ESHB 6094 §7) and the County-Wide Planning Policy
for Jefferson County (CWPP). This written analysis will factor the
findings, recommendations and conclusions developed to support
initial Comprehensive Plan adoption, and will include additional
recommendations, if necessary, on how areas of more intensive
rural development may be appropriately contained to prevent rural
sprawl.
b. A description of how any proposed urban growth area, or essential
public facility designations are consistent with the GMW and the
CWPP.
c. A written analysis of the alternatives describing the assumptions,
methodology and rationales employed in identifying alternative
urban growth area boundaries, and documenting consistency with
RCW 36.70A,110. Each alternative urban growth area scenario
will include a description of the potential advantages and
disadvantages associated with such designation. At a qualitative,
rather than quantitative level, the analysis will describe and
compare the public costs and benefits associated with providing
capital facilities, services and utilities to the various urban growth
area options.
4. Attend the Public Scoping Workshop - The consultant(s) will attend the
joint Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission DSEIS scoping
workshop (see Task IV, below) to explain and accept comments on the
alternatives proposed for review,
C. Products: The products of this task will provide further elaboration, analysis and
support for the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The
products of this task will also provide workable urban growth area and intensive
rural development choices that are consistent with state law and capable of
adoption and implementation. The alternatives developed under this task will be
used to inform and guide the public discussion, and provide the basis for the
selection of a "preferred" alternative. Specifically, the products will include:
1. A set of detailed set of commercial and manufacturing land use and Tri-
Area planning Alternatives Maps, including, at a minimum, three (3)
action" alternatives and the status quo, or "no action" alternative, An
area-wide map will be prepared for each alternative that depicts the
land use designations applied to the Tri-Area and the commercial and
manufacturing land use designations throughout eastern Jefferson County.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
13
AUGUST 15, 2001
Additionally, detail maps will be prepared that depict the potential
boundaries of each rural activity center and urban growth area under the
various alternatives.
2. A Narrative Analysis of the commercial and manufacturing land use and
Tri-Area planning scenarios describing the purpose and rationale(s) for
each alternative, the land area within specific zoning designations, the
advantages and disadvantages associated with the alternative, and a
description of how each alternative complies with the relevant provisions
of the GMA and the CWPP. The primary audience for this product is the
general public.
3. A White Paper examining the tradeoffs, at a qualitative level, between
the land use alternatives, The White Paper will include a description of
the relationship between each alternative and the existing conditions
inventory, the Tri-Area residential capacity analysis, preliminary
projections of commercial and manufacturing land demand and need, and
the regional economic analysis and forecast for eastern Jefferson County.
The White Paper will also include the consistency analyses referred to
under Task III(B)(3), above, and describe how each land use alternative
will appropriately limit areas of more intensive rural development,
consistent with ESHB 6094 §7. The primary audience for the White Paper
is County staff, the Jefferson County Planning Commission, and the
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.
2. In addition to the products listed above, the consultant(s) will staff the
joint Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission public scoping
workshop to explain and accept comments on the alternatives proposed
for review (see Task IV, below). The consultant(s) will also prepare any
hand out materials required for the workshop.
D. Timeline: Task III will be completed no later than Thursday, July 2,1998.
E. Required Qualifications: The consultant(s) should have recently demonstrated:
1. Experience with land use planing and analysis related to comprehensive
planning under the GMA.
2. Experience with small jurisdictions in rural and/or ex-urban settings
including experience in permitting of small-scale commercial and
manufacturing development.
3, A thorough understanding of GMA requirements, recent amendments to
the GMA (i.e., ESHB 6094), and Growth Management Hearings Board
decisions relating to the designation of urban growth areas, rural densities,
and the provision of services for both urban and rural land uses.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
14
AUGUST 15, 2001
4. An ability to communicate in both verbal and written forms the results of
the analysis with controversial and diverse clients and community groups.
5. The consultant(s) should also have experience in the generation of GIS
maps, and the preparation of plan graphics that illustrate alternative land
use scenarios.
References that address these specific attributes should be provided for work in
the past five years.
F. Estimated Bud~et: $13,000 (One Senior Planner @ $75.00 per hour for three full
weeks - 40 hrs. x 3 = 120 hrs, x 75 = $9,000, + one GIS Technician w/Graphics
Skills @ $75.00 per hour for one full week - 40hrs. x 75 = $3,000 + $1,000 in
expenses).
Task IV: Planning and Environmental Review of the Alternatives, and Selection of a
"Prefe"ed" Alternative
A. Purpose: The preceding tasks have been conducted independently by the
consultant(s) in coordination with County staff. The purpose of this task is to
provide opportunities for meaningful public participation in the selection of a
preferred alternative. Additionally, because selection and implementation of a
preferred alternative will likely necessitate amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan, the alternatives require supplemental environmental review under SEP A.
Integrating the processes for public and environmental review is designed to save
time and money by combining, to the greatest extent feasible, the background
information, alternatives, analyses and public involvement required under both
the GMA and SEP A.
B. Sub· Tasks: The following sub-tasks assume that preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) will be required for SEP A compliance.
The SEIS will be narrowly scoped to evaluate only the new information and
proposed alternatives generated under this work program, rather than to revisit
issued addressed in the DEIS previously issued for the Draft Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan. The consultant(s) will complete the following sub-tasks:
1. Prepare and Issue the DSEIS Scoping Notice - The consultant(s) will
prepare a combined revised scoping notice and notice for review and
comment on the land use alternatives. In the notice, the consultant(s) will
identify the elements of the affected environment and alternatives to be
analyzed in the DSEIS (see Attachment D - Special Study DSEIS Scoping
Recommendations).
2. Attend Public Scoping Workshops· The Planning Director (Le., SEP A
Responsible Official) and consultant(s) will conduct one (1) joint public
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
15
AUGUST 15, 2001
workshop with the Board and the Planning Commission to review the
alternatives proposed for DSEIS review, The intent of the meeting is to
describe and receive comments on the alternatives proposed for review,
and on the appropriate scope of the DSEIS. In addition, the Planning
Director and consultant(s) will conduct two (2) other public meetings for
the public to review and comment upon the Tri-Area and proposed
commercial and manufacturing land alternatives. The intent of these
meetings is to describe and receive comments on the alternatives proposed
for review, and on the appropriate scope of the DSEIS.
3. Revise the Land Use Alternatives - The consultant(s) will revise the
alternatives and DSEIS scope based on public and agency comments
received during the scoping process,
4. Conduct DSEIS Analysis of the Alternatives - The consultant(s) will
evaluate the land use alternatives for consistency with the elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, conduct environmental impact analyses of the
alternatives, and identify mitigation measures for each alternative, The
following sub-tasks will be completed:
a. An analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternatives based
upon the existing conditions report prepared under Task I;
b, An assessment of the consistency of the alternatives with
the plans of affected jurisdictions and agencies (Le., the
City of Port Townsend, the Port of Port Townsend and
Jefferson County PUD #1);
c. An analysis of the probable significant impacts of the alternatives
identified through the scoping process;
d. A description of the impacts of each alternative at a roughly
comparable level of detail;
e. A fiscal impact analysis that draws upon the research completed
under Task II, and describes the public infrastructure and facility
costs associated with each alternative, and the potential of each
alternative to generate the revenues needed to support the required
infrastructure and facility improvements; and
f. Identification of impacts that cannot be mitigated, and
identification of mitigation measures that could be implemented or
should be required if an alternative is chosen as the preferred
alternative.
6. Prepare and Distribute DSEIS - The consultant(s) will prepare notice
that the DSEIS is available for public review and comment.
7. Staff Public Workshops and Hearings - The consultant(s), in
coordination with County staff, will conduct four (4) joint BoardlPlanning
Commission citizen workshops and two (2) Planning Commission
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
16
AUGUST 15, 2001
hearings to review the DSEIS and solicit comments on a preferred
alternative,
8. Facilitate the Selection of a Preferred Alternative - The consultant(s),
in coordination with County staff, will facilitate one (1) public hearing
with the Board, at which time, a preferred alternative will be selected.
Upon selection of a preferred alternative, consultant(s) will initiate work
on Task V under this project.
C. Products:
1. Scoping notice for DSEIS.
2. Background paper for public distribution on the commercial and
manufacturing land use alternatives that includes a written analysis
of each alternative (see Task III(C)(3» along with a description of the
elements of the environment to be analyzed in the DSEIS.
3. Consultant(s) staffing of ten (10) public workshops and hearings,
including preparation of any additional hand out materials.
4. Preparation of the DSEIS document.
D. Timeline: Task IV will be completed no later than Wednesday, September 2,
1998.
E. Required Qualifications: The consultant(s) should have recently demonstrated:
1. Experience with land use planing and analysis related to comprehensive
planning under the GMA.
2. Experience with small jurisdictions in rural and/or ex-urban settings
including experience in permitting of small-scale commercial and
manufacturing development.
3. A thorough understanding of GMA requirements, recent amendments to
the GMA (Le., ESHB 6094), and Growth Management Hearings Board
decisions relating to the designation of urban growth areas, rural densities,
and the provision of services for both urban and rural land uses.
4. An ability to communicate in both verbal and written forms the results of
the analysis with controversial and diverse clients and community groups.
5, Experience in the preparation of programmatic environmental impact
statements for comprehensive plans or plan amendments under the GMA.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
17
AUGUST 15, 2001
6. Experience in SEP NGMA integration which demonstrates an ability to
facilitate an efficient and thorough public review process,
7, The consultant(s) (or consultant team) will include an engineer with
experience in the preparation of programmatic EISs, and relevant
experience in developing infrastructure provision alternatives, with an
emphasis on wastewater collection and treatment systems, water treatment
and distribution systems (including groundwater), and transportation
facilities,
References that address these specific attributes should be provided for work in
the past five years.
F. Estimated Bud~et: $34,500 (Two Senior Environmental Planners @ $75.00 per
hour for four weeks - 40 hrs. x 4 = 140 hrs. x 2 = 320 hrs. x 75 = $24,000, + one
Project Engineer @ $100,00 per hour for two full weeks - 40 hrs. x 2 ::: 80 hrs. x
100 = $8,000, + $2,500 in expenses).
Task V - Preparation of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Implement the
Preferred Alternative, and Preparation of the FSEIS
A. Purpose: The purpose of this task is to assure consistency between the
Comprehensive Plan and the preferred alternative selected under Task IV, above.
This task will ensure that the supporting narrative, analyses, and goals and
policies of the plan are tailored to the desired commercial and manufacturing land
use pattern, and the desired land use designation of the Tri-Area identified under
the preferred alternative. Of necessity, the specific sub-tasks and work products
required under Task V are largely dependent on the preferred alternative chosen
under Task IV.
Specifically, if the Special Study process leads to the designation of either or both
the Tri-Area and Glen Cove as urban growth areas, then completion of Task V
will be required. Due to the current uncertainty regarding the outcome of the
studies and tasks described above, Task V is general in nature and is included to
give the reader an idea of how the process for potential future UGA designation(s)
may proceed. Additional studies such as annexation studies for the possible Glen
Cove UGA or pre-incorporation feasibility studies could be integrated with the
sub-area planning process anticipated under this task,
B. Sub-Tasks:
1. Review the Preferred Alternative for Consistency with the Land Use
Map - Assess the consistency of the preferred alternative with the
Comprehensive Plan land use map, and identify amendments necessary
for consistency with the preferred alternative.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
18
AUGUST 15, 2001
2. Identify and Prepare Necessary Amendments to the Text of the
Comprehensive Plan - After assessing the consistency of the preferred
alternative with the goals, policies and implementation measures of the
Comprehensive Plan, identify necessary amendments to ensure
consistency with the preferred alternative.
3. Prepare the Detailed Capital Facilities Plan - Identify necessary
revisions to the capital improvements program of the Capital Facilities
Plan in order to support the timing and location of land uses under the
preferred alternative. If probable funding sources will not support the
desired land use pattern at the identified level of service, adjust the levels
of service or the Land Use Element and map to assure that development is
located where it can be supported.
Detailed capital facilities analysis will be conducted on areas proposed for
intensive rural development and/or urban growth areas. The analysis will
focus primarily on the wasterwater collection, treatment and disposal
facilities, water system quality, supply and distribution facilities and
transportation facilities, costs and levels of service. Topic areas that will
be addressed under each infrastructure category are detailed in Attachment
E - Required Infrastructure Analyses.
4. Prepare the FSEIS - Compile, review and respond to comments received
on the DSEIS and supplement the environmental analysis as necessary.
5. Attend Public Meetings - As directed, the consultant(s) will staff up to
six (6) Planning Commission and six (6) Board of Commissioners public
meetings and hearings leading up to formal adoption of the plan
amendments.
C. Products:
1. A land use map revised to conform to the preferred alternative.
2. Recommended amendments to the affected goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan in a "lines-in" and "lines-out" format.
3. A revised capital improvements plan tailored to the land use pattern of
the preferred alternative.
4. A FSEIS documenting SEP A compliance.
5. Attendance at public meetings and hearings as requested by staff.
D. Timeline: Task V will be completed by November 19, 2001.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
19
AUGUST 15, 2001
E. Required Qualifications:
1. Experience with land use planning and analysis related to comprehensive
planning under the GMA.
2. Experience with small jurisdictions in rural and/or ex-urban settings
including experience in permitting of small-scale commercial and
manufacturing development.
3. A thorough understanding of GMA requirements, recent amendments to
the GMA (Le., ESHB 6094), and Growth Management Hearings Board
decisions relating to the designation of urban growth areas, rural densities,
and the provision of services for both urban and rural land uses.
4. An ability to communicate in both verbal and written forms the results of
the analysis with controversial and diverse clients and community groups.
5. Experience in SEPNGMA integration which demonstrates an ability to
facilitate an efficient and thorough public review process.
6. The consultant(s) (or consultant team) will include an engineer with
experience in the preparation of programmatic EISs, and relevant
experience in developing infrastructure provision alternatives, with an
emphasis on wastewater collection and treatment systems, water treatment
and distribution systems (including groundwater), and transportation
facilities.
F. Estimated Bud~et: To be developed.
Task VI - Preparation of Implementation Measures (i,e., Detailed Sub-Area Plans for
the Tri-Area and Glen Cove)
A. Purpose: Task VI is dependent on the outcome of Task V. Specifically, if the
decision is made during the Special Study process to designate either or both the
Tri-Area and Glen Cove as urban growth areas, then completion of Task VI will
be required. Due to the current uncertainty regarding the outcome of the studies
and tasks described above, Task VI is general in nature and is included to give the
reader an idea of how the process for potential future UGA designation(s) may
proceed. Additional studies such as annexation studies for the Glen Cove UGA or
pre-incorporation feasibility studies could be integrated with the sub-area
planning process anticipated under this task.
For purposes of Special Study completion, a detailed sub-area plan is envisioned
to be an analysis undertaken at a level of detail resulting in the establishment of
discrete land use districts within the proposed UGA(s). These land use districts
will be characterized by general uses and specific densities. The sub-area planes)
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
20
AUGUST 15, 2001
will identify the specific amount of commercial, industrial, residential and public
facility designated land that will be required within the UGA(s). The
identification of additional acreage required for commercial and industrial uses
within the UGA(s) will be considered based on the estimates of additional
commercial and industrial land as discussed in the Regional Economic Analysis
and Forecast prepared by Trottier Research Group dated January 26, 1999 and
further addressed in the document titled Memorandum: Comments on Estimates of
Additional Land Needed for Employment Growth prepared by Trottier Research
Group dated September 27, 1999.
Bac~round: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan would be the general
policy plan that guides the overall development of the county. The
Comprehensive Plan allows the preparation of sub-area plans for those portions of
the county where more detailed land use policies and designations are needed.
These sub-area plans could include interlocal agreements regarding the provision
of public services, such as police and fire agreements between the City, PUD and
County on the provision of drinking water, A sub-area plan is a functional plan
and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The sub-are plan relies on
the text and policies in the Comprehensive Plan but includes additional
information and guidance for future growth and development.
B. Sub· Tasks:
3.
1.
Meet with key Jefferson County staff to identify the key issues and
expectations for the process and the final product. The outcome of these
meetings will be a refined and more detailed understanding of the roles
and responsibilities and expectations for the project and its outcomes.
2.
Review the 1995 Tri-Area Community Development Plan, the Glen
Cove/Tri-Area Special Study (and FSEIS), Jefferson County and Port
Townsend Comprehensive Plan's (and other documents as appropriate) in
order to assemble or update new information on land use and growth
management requirements for the area, as available and applicable. The
inventory of data will provide a "snapshot" of the current conditions that
will form the basis for the subsequent analyses and recommendations
regarding designation of Glen Cove and the Tri-Area as urban growth
areas.
Based on the analysis in sub-task 2, assess options for final land use
designations for Glen Cove. This would include an analysis of three
primary alternatives:
1. Expansion of Port Townsend UGA
2. Non-Municipal UGA designation; and
3. Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development
(LAMIRD) designation
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
21
AUGUST 15, 2001
4.
5.
6.
7.
This task will include review and assessment of Hearings Board decisions
regarding UGA designation in similar circumstances in other communities
and the application of those decisions to the Glen Cove situation as well as
potential consistency with the adopted Jefferson County and Port
Townsend Comprehensive Plan's and recognize the need to consider
urban reserve areas within this above analysis process.
Based on the analysis in Task Two and the assumptions made as part of
that analysis (and consensus from the County), prepare a draft set of no
less than three alternative Tri-Area land use maps (with supporting
documentation) to meet the requirements for designation of a non-
municipal urban growth area, These draft maps (and supporting
documentation) will be developed in coordination with the capital facility
planning requirements of the GMA, Hearings Board, the CP and UDC.
They will be based (to the maximum extent practicable) on the population
allocations previously identified for the Tri-Area in the Special Study
FSEIS.
Plan for, prepare necessary supporting information and documents, attend
and facilitate public meetings (as necessary) with a Tri-Area Community
Planning Group appointed by the County. This task will also include
preparation of necessary supporting information and documentation (as
needed) in support of producing a final recommended UGA land use plan
(or land use allocation) for the Tri-Area and other information and
planning documentation sufficient to satisfy completion of the Special
Study.
Preparation of Draft Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study Implementation
Plan and SEPA Documentation. This task will incorporate analysis and
recommendations for policy changes, code revisions, revised land use and
population allocations (as necessary) to conclude the "Special Study". It
will contain sufficient analysis to make recommendation on the allocation
of commercial/industrial lands to the Tri-Area UGA and a preferred land
use strategy and time line for final land use designations for Glen Cove, It
will also outline the next steps in the planning process to implement the
findings of the Special Study (e.g., such as preparation of final urban
growth area or other subarea plans) consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Growth Management
Act.
Final Implementation Plan Review and Adoption Process. This task will
include attendance at Board of County Commissioner meetings (no more
than three) in order to facilitate Board review, revision (if necessary) and
final adoption. Will also include attendance at project meetings (no more
than three) with the County staff and consultants in order to prepare final
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
-~
22
AUGUST 15, 2001
revisions and recommended BoCC changes to the draft Implementation
Plan (as warranted).
C. Products:
1. A document for public distribution detailing land use options for Glen
Cove.
2. No less than three alternative land use maps that could satisfy the UGA
requirements and criteria of the GMA and the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and implement the recommendations of the Special
Study regarding UGA(s).
3. Prepare for and conduct a maximum of seven (7) meetings with the
Community Planning Group(s) in the preparation, deliberation and
tentative recommendation of future land use allocations and UGA
implementation procedures
4. Preparation of necessary support documentation and graphics needed
for public review,
5. Prepare for and attend no more than two (2) open house style public
informational meetings/workshops.
6. Preparation of Draft and Final Special Study Implementation Plan
document(s), including appropriate maps outlining the recommended land
use allocation for the UGA(s) and identification of steps necessary for
"final" UGA(s) adoption and implementation and a preferred strategy and
timeline for final land use designations.
7. Prepare final "consistency" and legal review and analysis to ensure
compliance with the GMA and existing Jefferson CountylPort Townsend
Comprehensive Plan language regarding UGAs.
8. Prepare the necessary findings of fact, SEPA and other supporting
documentation necessary for final review and approval by the County.
9. Attendance at no more than three Board of County Commissioner
meetings in order to facilitate Board review, revision (if necessary) and
final adoption.
D. Timeline: Task VI will be completed by November 19, 2001.
E. Required Qualifications: The consultant(s) should have recently demonstrated:
1. Experience with land use planning and analysis related to comprehensive
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
23
AUGUST 15, 2001
planning under the GMA.
2. Experience with small jurisdictions in rural and/or ex-urban settings
including experience in permitting of small-scale commercial and
manufacturing development.
3. A thorough understanding of GMA requirements, recent amendments to
the GMA (Le., ESHB 6094), and Growth Management Hearings Board
decisions relating to the designation of urban growth areas, rural densities,
and the provision of services for both urban and rural land uses.
4. An ability to communicate in both verbal and written forms the results of
the analysis with controversial and diverse clients and community groups.
F, Estimated Bud2et: To be developed.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
24
AUGUST 15, 2001
--"--"
Attachment A:
SELECTED REFERENCES FOR
PHASE #2 OF THE TRI-AREA, & GLEN COVE
SPECIAL STUDY
A. Selected Local Plans, Studies and Documents:
1. Appendix A: Jefferson County Rural Commercial Zones (September 20,
1996).
2, Draft Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (February 24, 1997).
3. Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan (July 15, 1996).
4. Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan (January 10, 1996).
5. Population Forecast for Jefferson County & Port Townsend: Final
Report, prepared by the Watterson West Group, Inc, (December 1994).
6. County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, Washington, Adopted
by County Resolution 128-92 (December 21, 1992).
7. Overall Economic Development Plan, Clallam-Jefferson Peninsula
Development Association (June 1993).
8. Jefferson County Relocation and Investor's Guide, Economic
Development Council of Jefferson County (Summer 1993).
9. Jefferson County Retail Sales Leakage Estimates: 1986-1989, Economic
Development Council of Jefferson County (June 1990).
10. Summary Report - Retail Shopping in Jefferson County: A County-Wide
Survey of Jefferson County Citizens on Retail Trade Issues Facing the
Region, Economic Development Council of Jefferson County (November
24, 1990).
11. Port of Port Townsend Target Industry Analysis, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff
(February 17, 1993).
12. Jefferson County Housing Needs Assessment Summary Report, Pacific
Development Concepts (June, 1991).
13. Peninsula Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) (1995).
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
25
AUGUST 15, 2001
14. Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan, City of Port Townsend
(August 1993).
15, Transportation Impacts for Glen Cove Study Area, Alternatives 2 & 3,
Henigar & Berryman (June 7, 1995).
B. Selected County Draft Reports and Memoranda
1. Tri-Area Urban Growth Area Analysis, Jefferson County Department, for
Preliminary Planning Commission Presentation (May 3, 1995).
2. Existing Lot Buildout - Tri-Area Planning Area, Jefferson County
Planning Department (February 13, 1995).
3. Tri-Area - Planning Area #4 Existing Lot Capacity Analysis, Memoranda
from Roger Blaylock to Pat Dugan (January 5, 24, 26 and February 2,
1995).
4. Jefferson County Urban Characterization Study: Study Method and
Preliminary Results, Jefferson Planning Department (November 8, 1994).
5, Tri-Area Water and Wastewater Systems Capital Facilities Requirements
Analysis for Jefferson County, Washington, Henderson & Young,
Preliminary Draft Report (January 15, 1995).
C. DCTED Guidebooks:
1. Preparing the Heart of Your Comprehensive Plan: A Land Use Element
Guide, Washington State Department of Community Development -
Growth Management Division (April 1993).
2. Preparing Your Comprehensive Plan Foundation: A Land Use Inventory
Guide, Washington State Department of Community Development -
Growth Management Division (June 1993).
3. Making Your Comprehensive Plan a Reality: A Capital Facilities Plan
Preparation Guide, Washington State Department of Community
Development - Growth Management Division (October 1992).
4. Economic Development Through Growth Management - Making the
Vision Real, Washington State Department of Community Development -
Growth Management Division (October 1992).
5. Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas: Part I - Providing Adequate
Urban Land Supply, Washington State Department of Community
Development - Growth Management Division (March 1992).
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
26
AUGUST 15, 2001
-~.~"
6. Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas: Part II - Some Suggestions
For Criteria and Densities, Washington State Department of Community
Development - Growth Management Division (March 1992).
7. Defining Rural Character and Planning for Rural Lands, Washington
State Department of Community Development - Growth Management
Division (March 1992),
C. Hearings Board Decisions:
1. City of Gig Harbor v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB 95-3-0016 (1995) (Final
Decision and Order, October 31, 1995). (Guidance re: sizing of
UGAs, discussion of land capacity analysis, and defensibility of rural
activity center designations),
2. Achen v. Clark County, WWGMHB No, 95-2-0067 (Compliance Order
and Order of Invalidity, October 1, 1996). (Guidance re: sizing
of UGAs, market factor surplus).
3. CUSTER Ass'n. v. Whatcom County, WWGMHB No. 96-2-0008 (Final
Decision and Order, September 12, 1996). (Guidance re: projected
demand and need for commercial and industrial land, sizing of UGAs,
market factor to be applied, and infrastructure tiering).
4. City of Port Townsend et al. v. Jefferson County, WWGHMB No. 94-2-
0006 (Compliance Hearing Order, December 14, 1994), (Discussion of
studies and analysis necessary to support IUGA designation, and to permit
commercial and manufacturing development outside of incorporated
areas),
5. Friends of Skagit County v. Skagit County, WWGMHB No. 95-2-0065
(Final Decision and Order, August 30,1995). (Discussion of information
and analysis necessary to support designation of unincorporated UGAs).
6. City of Port Townsend v. Jefferson County, WWGPHB No. 94-2-0006,
(Final Order, August 10, 1994). (Discussion of information and analysis
needed to support UGA designation).
7. Reading et al. v. Thurston County and City of Olympia, WWGMHB No.
94-2-0019 (Final Order, March 23rd, 1995). (Example of a well executed
land capacity analysis).
8, Dawes, et al v. Mason County, WWGMHB No. 96-2-0023 (Final Decision
and Order, December 5, 1996). (Rural activity centers - sizing and uses
allowed).
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
27
AUGUST 15, 2001
9. Peninsula NeighborhoodAssociation v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB 95-3-
0071 (1996), (Final Decision and Order, March 20, 1996). (Rural activity
centers - sizing and uses allowed),
10. Vashon-Maury et al. v. King County, CPSGMHB No. 95-2-0008 (Final
Decision and Order, October 23, 1995). (Discussion of permissible rural
commercial and industrial uses).
11. Cities of Tacoma, Milton, Puyuallup and Sumner v. Pierce County,
CPSGPHB No. 94-3-0001 (Final Decision and Order, July 5, 1994).
(Discussion of rural activity center and IUGA designations).
12. McGowan v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No, 96-3-0027 (Order on
Motions, September 5, 1996). (Rural activity center designations
remanded).
13. Wenatchee Valley Mall Partnership et al. v. Douglas County, EWGMHB
No. 96-1-0009 (December 10, 1996). (Rural service center designations
remanded).
14. City of Gig Harbor v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0016c (May
20, 1996). (Rural activity centers remanded).
D. Other Selected References:
1. How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities - And What Citizens Can
Do About It, Constance E. Beaumont, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Washington D.C. (1994).
2. An Economic Development Strategy for Jefferson County: Executive
Summary, Philip Speser, Ph.D, (Spring, 1994).
3. Land Use Encroachment - Technical Assistance, prepared by Washington
State Department of Transportation, Aviation Division (June 1996).
4. ESHB 6094 Summary, prepared by staff to the Land Use Study
Commission (May 21, 1997).
5. Issue Paper #7: Transition Rules; Issue Paper # 9: Rural and Agricultural
Lands, and: Issue Paper #10: Urban Lands, prepared by the staff to the
Land Use Study Commission, from www.wa.gov/cted/landuse.
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
28
AUGUST 15, 2001
Attachment B:
SPECIAL STUDY TASK & BUDGET SUMMARY
TASKS, PRODUCTS & ESTIMATED BUDGET SUMMARY
Tasks Products Estimated Budget
Task I · Inventory Maps $16,000
· Existing Conditions Report
· Land Use Analysis Report
Task n · Draft Market Analysis Report $21,500
· Final Market Analysis Report (containing
suggested economic development
alternatives)
Task In · Commercial and Manufacturing and Tri- $15,000
Area Alternatives Maps
· Alternatives Report
· White Paper (qualitatively examining the
tradeoffs between the alternatives)
Task IV · DSEIS Scoping Notice $34,500
· Alternatives/DSEIS Scoping
Report
· Staffing of Public Meetings
· DSEIS
Task V · Land Use Map Revisions, if needed To be Determined
· Plan Text Amendments, if needed Based on Completion
· CIP/CFP Amendments, if needed of Tasks I - IV
· FSEIS
Task VI · Tri-Area Sub-area Plan, if needed To be Determined
· Glen Cove Sub-area Plan, if needed Based on Completion
· Interlocal Agreements, if needed of Tasks I-V
Preliminary Budget Estimate - Tasks I - IV $87,000
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
29
AUGUST 15, 2001
Attachment C:
(Reserved)
SPECIAL STUDY TIMELINE - KEY DATES
& PROJECT MILESTONES
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
30
AUGUST 15, 2001
Attachment D:
SPECIAL STUDY
DSEIS SCOPING RECOMMENDATIONS
The DSEIS will compare and analyze the impacts upon the environment of the
alternatives for UGA and intensive rural development designation. The DSEIS should
evaluate the alternatives for their potential to result in probable significant adverse
impacts to all elements of the natural and built environment, as set forth in Chapter 197-
11 WAC. Although it is not possible at this early stage to definitively identify the scope
of the DSEIS, it is possible to describe particular topic areas that will likely require
particular attention in any future environmental review, Topic areas warranting particular
scrutiny include:
The Natural Environment:
1. Surface Water: The potential of the alternatives to result in an increase in
impervious surfaces, and any attendant impacts related to stormwater drainage,
and runoff water quality,
2, Ground Water: The potential of the alternatives to result in contamination to
ground water supplies used as a source for potable water, and the ability to serve
the alternatives with known ground water resources. Particular attention should
be paid to the potential for nitrate (Le., caused by failing on-site septic systems)
contamination under the various alternatives.
The Built Environment:
1. Land Use: The DSEIS should provide specific estimates of the Tri-Area
residential population holding capacity of the alternatives, and the employment
holding capacity of the alternatives. The analysis should also provide a detailed
description of the anticipated impacts to existing commercial and manufacturing
areas, including a discussion of anticipated changes in zoning.
2. Housing: The DSEIS should contain an analysis of impacts to housing
afford ability under the various alternatives, including a discussion of the
relationship between anticipated future housing costs and personal incomes.
3. Transportation: The potential of the alternatives to result in traffic congestion in
the following locations: S.R. 19 between Ness' Corner Road and Irondale Road;
and S.R. 20 between the S.R. 19/20 junction and the Port Townsend/Keystone
Ferry Terminal.
4. Public Facilities & Utilities: Anticipated demand for urban infrastructure
including: water treatment, storage and distribution facilities; wastewater
collection and treatment facilities; storm water management facilities; and
emergency services.
In addition to the topic areas identified above, the DSEIS should include a thorough
discussion and analysis of the potential of the alternatives to generate revenues needed to
provide required infrastructure. This analysis should be based, in substantial part, on
analysis contained within the Final Market Analysis Report (see Task II).
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
31
AUGUST 15, 2001
Attachment E:
TASK V - REQUIRED INFRASRUCTURE ANALYSES
Water System Analysis:
1. Previous studies have produced a wide array of information on existing water
facility conditions in the Tri-Area and Glen Cove, The consultant(s) will evaluate
existing service area characteristics and update existing conditions information
to reflect land use changes, such as urban growth area boundaries, changes in
zoning, uses allowed, rural\urban densities permitted, and relationship to existing
plans and facilities (e.g., CWSP - groundwater versus surface water, type of
wastewater disposal). Any changes or recommendations should be integrated into
the service areas and water supply chapters of the CWSP. The consultant(s) will
coordinate review of existing information with other water purveyors in east
Jefferson County,
2. If necessary, prepare a revised future water service area map for urban growth
area(s),
3. Based on the above review, revise estimates of future water demand to be
consistent with the water service area(s) under the preferred alternative.
4. Building upon the groundwater feasibility analysis contained in DSEIS, the
consultant(s) will evaluate groundwater supply and demand, and discuss potential
alternative supply options. Options should include using both surface and
groundwater supplies.
5, Prepare a map of the existing and future densities and text describing how the
proposed service area boundary is consistent with the preferred alternative.
6. Identify the facilities required to serve the growth anticipated under the preferred
alternative. Evaluate the existing water distribution system and propose measures
needed to upgrade the system to implement the preferred alternative, including
measures related to protection of well fields and improvements to storage
facilities,
7. Design the water distribution system for the entire future service area.
8. Estimate future costs. This will include cost estimates for required capital
improvements and operations and maintenance of the required facilities. Evaluate
financing alternative options.
Wastewater System Analysis:
1. Previous studies have produced some information on existing wastewater
conditions in the Tri-Area and Glen Cove. The consultant(s) will evaluate
existing area characteristics and update existing conditions information to reflect
land use changes, such as urban growth area boundaries, changes in zoning or
uses allowed, and relationship to other existing plans and facilities (e.g.,
groundwater versus surface water, type of wastewater disposal).
2. If necessary to support the preferred alternative, prepare a future wastewater
service area map,
3. Based on the above review, prepare estimates of future wastewater loading
potential under the preferred alternative, and evaluate alternative collection and
disposal options,
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
32
AUGUST 15, 2001
4, Define drainage basins and delineate the limits of drainage basins within the
service area boundary(ies),
5. Prepare a map of the existing and future densities and text describing how the
proposed service area boundary is consistent with the preferred alternative.
6. Identify the wastewater collection and treatment facilities required to serve the
growth anticipated under the preferred alternative, Conduct a wastewater
treatment facility analysis that defines the hydraulic and wastewater capacities of
any proposed facilities, Phasing options should be considered that evaluate the
viability of initially using community drainfields with subsequent replacement by
a comprehensive sewer system constructed over a specified time period.
7. Design the wastewater collection and treatment system for the entire future
servIce area.
8. Estimate future costs. This will include cost estimates for required capital
improvements and operations and maintenance of the required facilities. Evaluate
financing alternative options,
Transportation System Analysis:
1. The analysis of transportation system needs will evaluate the impacts of changes
in zoning under the preferred alternative, with particular emphasis on intensive
rural or urban commercial and manufacturing lands. The consultant(s) will
review and evaluate existing transportation documents, such as the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Plan Organization's, Regional Transportation Plan,
Berryman and Henigar transportation analysis for the Glen Cove Alternatives
(spring, 1996), and County and City Transportation Improvement Plans.
2. Compare projected new vehicle trips under the preferred alternative with existing
conditions and assign the estimated trips to key intersections in the study area,
3. Based on the estimated trips and trip assignment data, determine the size of the
roadway required for each major arterial or collector in the study area.
4. Prepare a map of the recommended integrated transportation network that
connects the various sub-areas of east Jefferson County. Identify areas of
insufficient right-of-way.
5. Identify the required transportation facility improvements needed under the
preferred alternative. Include transit, pedestrian and bike facility improvements
the within overall transportation network.
6. Estimate future costs. This will include cost estimates for required transportation
system improvements and operations and maintenance of the required
transportation facilities. Evaluate financing and impact mitigation options. Based
on the results, prepare recommendations for a multi-year financing plan based on
identified facility needs, If funding falls short of meeting identified needs,
recommend changes in levels of service, identify additional funding sources, or
revise the land use pattern to ensure consistency with RCW 36,70A.070.
[END]
SPECIAL STUDY
REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES
33
AUGUST 15, 2001