HomeMy WebLinkAbout128 92JEFFERSON COUNTY/CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of The Adoption }
of County-wide Planning Policy }
COUNTY RESOLUTION N0.12s-s2
CITY RESOLUTION NO. Q~i~z
WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A.210 R.C.W. (the Growth Management Act,
GMA) directs the county, in cooperation with its cities, to develop aCounty-wide
Planning Policy to be used as a policy framework from which county and city
comprehensive plans are to be developed and adopted; and
WHEREAS, by joint resolution (County Resolution No. 107-91, City
Resolution No. 91-90) Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend established a
Growth Management Committee to oversee the development of this policy; and
WHEREAS, the County and City have jointly developed this policy as a
foundation from which to judge consistency between County and City comprehensive
plans, and the requirements of GMA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the joint resolution, the Growth Management
Committee conducted, on September 21, 1992, a pubic hearing for the adoption of the
County-wide Planning Policy; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, and review and discussion of the
public testimony, the County-wide Planning Policy was revised by the Growth
Management Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Committee did, on November 24,
1992, conduct its final review of the County-wide Planning Policy, and by formal motion
recommends that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the City Council
of the City of Port Townsend jointly adopt these policies consistent with the
requirements of the GMA.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County-wide Planning
Policy, attached ,~Gas,`Exhibit A, is hereby adopted by Jefferson County and the City of
Port ToV~~CS,dd; ~rsuant to the joint resolution and Chapter 36.70A.210 R.C.W.
S, w. `~. F +ik ~ ,~ i
t.. ~, APPRCbV~D AND SIGNED this da of_ L ?~C- _, 1992.
~,
.. t~..
SEAL*. ~ ~ .~
~- - ~, ~:
~, Ey^,,
Lorna L. Delaney,
Cferk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
_ ,~
nnison, Chairman
APPROVED AND SIGNED this ~/_-day of ~_,.~~~c.1' 1992.
ATTEST:
ve, City Cle c
~il
POD TOWNSEND
J n Clise, Mayor
1 S r~~ ~ (~ ~.`~;~;~
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY
for
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EXHIBIT A
~~~. ~ V F~u~ ~ ~ I ~,i.ar'
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
A POLICY FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
COMPREHEN511TE PLANS
INTRODUCTION:
The opening section of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) sets forth the
following legislative finding:
"uncoordinated and unplanned growth together with a lack of common
goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use
of our lands, pose a threat to the environmern, sustainable economic
development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by
the residents of the state".
The legislature went an to develop astate-wide growth management strategy encompassing
the following goals:
• Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
• Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development.
• Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
plans.
• Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic
segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential
densities and hauling types, and encourage preservation of existing housing
stock.
• Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state
that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic oppor-
tunity for ail citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and far disad-
vantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient
economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public
services, and public facilities.
• Property rights. Private property shall not be taken far public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
• Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be
processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
• Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based
industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries.
Encourage the conservation of productive forest Lands and productive agricultural
lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
p 1
• Open space and recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and
development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks.
• Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
• Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in
the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdic-
tions to reconcile conflicts.
• Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at
the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
• Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
The passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) fundamentally changed the way com-
prehensive land use planning is carried out in the state. The GMA requires that cities and
counties update their comprehensive land use plans consistent with state-wide goals and
minimum requirements as established by the statute and coordinate their planning efforts with
each other. The central theme behind the Growth Management Act is that spontaneous and
unstructured growth and development is wasteful of our natural resource base and costly in
the provision of public services and facilities; and by managing growth and development, the
negative effects can be minimized and the benefits can be maximized.
The act is built on the principle that Cities and Counties, special purpose districts and
those agencies or jurisdictions involved in the delivery of public services will coordinate their
efforts consistent with each other and the provisions of the act. In an effort to assure these
principles are carried out, the legislature passed companion legislation requiring Counties and
Cities to coordinate the independent development of local comprehensive plans through a set
of mutually developed County-wide Planning Policies. These written policy statements are to
address eight subject areas and are intend to be used as a guiding framework for subsequent
development and adoption of comprehensive plans. The required County-wide Planning Policy
subject areas include:
• the designation of Urban Growth Areas
• promotion of contiguous and orderly development and the provision of urban
services to such development
• joint county and city planning within urban growth areas
• the siting of essential public facilities of a county or state wide significance
• county-wide transportation facilities and strategies
• the need for affordable housing for all economic segments of the population
• county-wide economic development and employment
• analysis of fiscal impact.
2
'VQ1. ~ O F~6f Q 1.`~'iCa~
In addition to the eight required policy areas, the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson
County agreed to add policies pertaining to rural areas and the context within which the
County-wide Planning Policies are to be used.
THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING PROCESS:
The County-wide Planning Policies were developed through a collaborative process between
the City and County, public service providers, utilities, special purpose districts and com-
munity organizations. The development of these policies has been overseen by a steering
committee comprising the three Jefferson County Commissioners (B. G. Brown, Larry
Dennison, and Richard Wojt), two Port Townsend City Council members (Jean Camfield and
Norma Owsley) and Port Townsend Mayor John Clise.
Background information leading up to the development of these policies is found in a
discussion "white paper" paper titled County-Wide Planning Policies: A Strategic Analysis.
This "white paper" provides an in-depth discussion of the legislative back ground, strategic
elements or issues concerning local application and policy considerations for each of the
policy areas. Copies of the "white paper" are available from the Office of the County
Commissioners, County Courthouse. The "white paper" is not adopted as part of the
County-wide Planning Policies.
The County-wide Planning Policies represent a composite framework, not a series of
individual, stand-alone concepts. The ideas represented here balance each other to create an
overall direction for development of individual comprehensive plans. These policies establish
the foundation for determining consistency of individual plans with each other and with the
tenets of the Growth Management Act, as wen as a mechanism to coordinate the provision
of public facilities and services throughout the community. Finally, these policies encompass
broad concepts encouraging flexibility and innovation in meeting the goals and intent of the
Growth Management Act and will, like the planning documents they are intended to guide,
evolve over time.
RELATIQN&HIP OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNfNG POLICIES TO INTERIM I\ESOUR-
ÇE LAND AND CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE:
The GMA envisions a process whereby resource lands and critical areas are identified,
designated, classified, conserved and protected as a initial first ~1ep in the growth manage-
ment process. Following the adoption of these interim measures, comprehensive land use
plans will be updated to meet the goals and provisions of the act. It is intended that these
interim protective measures will be reevaluated during the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process and revised to comply with the plan as required by the GMA. The principles
encompassed by the planning policies will serve as' a policy guide in the process of adjusting
the interim protective measures.
3
'lOt.
18'rAt~
O.17Z4
POLICY #1
POLICY TO IMPLEMENT RCW 36.70A.llO
URBAN GROWTH AREAS
1. The County and City will jointly prepare a regional population forecast for growth
management planning purposes.
The forecast will use the Washington State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) population projection as the low or base projection, and
establish a medium and high range projection.
This forecast will delineate a ten, twenty
and fifty year ultimate population projection and be used in the preparation of water,
utility and transportation plans and for the capital improvement plans to implement the
same.
To assure consistent and coordinated planning horizons, the population forecast
will be designated as the official source reference by the County and City, and utilized
when determining consistency of special purpose district service plans.
The forecast shall
be reviewed and updated at least every five years.
2. For planning purposes, the capacity of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) will be sized to
accommodate at least 100% of the low-base or OFM projected population growth and if
supported by an adopted capital facilities plan, may be sized to accommodate the locally
adopted medium and high range population projection.
(Note:
The GMA does not direct
where people may choose to live, however, it does require that urban development be
accommodated within urban growth areas.
This policy is forwarded to ensure that UGAs
and their attendant facilities are properly sized to accommodate future populations.)
4
\fat
18 f'\f>~
0 1125
3. The size and delineation of boundaries of UGAs will be determined by the following
criteria:
.
adequate amount of developable land to accommodate forecasted growth for the
next 20 years based on the joint population forecast.
.
sufficient developable land for residential, commercial and industrial uses to sustain
a healthy local and regional economy.
.
lands within incorporated city limits.
.
lands already characterized by urban development which are currently served or are
planned to be served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools
and other urban services within the next twenty years; provided that such urban
services which are not yet in place are included in a capital facilities plan.
.
the type and degree of existing urban services necessary to support urban develop-
ment at the adopted interim level of service standards.
.
sufficient area for the designation of greenbelts and open space corridors.
.
topographical features or environmentally sensitive areas which may form natural
boundaries such as bays, watersheds, rivers or ridge lines.
4. Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow are considered being" characterized by urban growth" for
the purpose of designating UGA in the unincorporated County.
The Tri-Area Community
Plan and the Port Ludlow Master Plan will be utilized as a guide in the delineation of
UGA boundaries based on the criteria above.
5
yet
18 f.\~~
0 1. 726
$. Land use plans, regulations and capita] facility plans within each UGA will be designed
to accommodate the projected population. Growth should be directed into two tiers: first
tier -existing commercial centers and urbanized areas where the six (6) year capital
facilities plan is prepared to provide urban infrastructure; second tier -areas included
within the capital facilities plan to receive the full range of urban services within twenty
(20) years. Infrastructure improvements necessary to support development in the second
tier will be provided by the developer concurrent with development, or by public entities
as a result of implementing all ar a portion of the capital facilities plan.
b, UGA boundaries may be changed whenever it can be shown that the criteria set Earth
above for size and boundary delineation may no longer be met; provided, said expansion
shall only occur after the capital facilities plan is updated and adopted assuring adequate
urban service to support the additional area.
7. Before adopting boundaries of UGAs, interim level of service standards far public services
and facilities located inside and outside of UGA's will be adopted by the County and its
UGAs. New urban public facilities will only be provided within and not be extended
beyond UGAs, unless deemed as an essential public service to mitigate a threat to the
public health, safety or general welfare.
8. UGAs will be separated from each other by designated rural or resource lands, open
space corridors, or unique topographic features such as a stream or ravine.
6
v~_. 18 ~~~ 0 ~7~4~
POLICY ~z
POLICY ON THE PROMOTION OF CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
AND THE PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
1. The full range of governmental urban services at the adapted level of service standards
will be planned for and provided within UGAs, as defined in the capital facilities plan,
including community water, sanitary sewer, piped fire flow, and storm water systems.
2. The County is the designated planning agency for unincorporated UGAs. A citizens
advisory committee will be appointed for each unincorporated UGA to guide development
of a community plan for these areas. Said plan will include the following elements:
capital facilities, utilities, open space, recreation, housing, land use and transportation.
3. New development will meet the adopted level of service standards established for UGAs
as a condition of project approval. Said standards will include interim provisions for
those urban facilities identified in the capital facilities plan but not yet developed. New
development will contribute its proportionate share towards provision of urban facilities
identified in the capital facilities plan once adopted in compliance with the Growth
Management Act.
4. Urban services and facilities will not be extended beyond UGA boundaries unless needed
to mitigate a threat to the public health or welfare, or to protect an area of environ-
mental sensitivity. To avoid encouraging the spreading of urban development outside of
7
~~~~. ~.8 Fait p 17~~
UGAs, this policy shall apply only to threats caused by existing development, and only
those existing uses requiring the service or facility to mitigate the threat will be allowed
to hook up to any extended services.
5. Priority for the funding of new ar expanded public services and facilities will first be
given to those which are responding to capacity deficiencies within UGAs or to those
which provide an inducement for development within UGAs or to those responding to a
public health threat.
b. The minimum design capacity for all planned capital facilities will be based upon the total
population projected for the service area at the end of the twenty year period identified in
the adopted population forecast.
7. The County will, in consultation with City of Port Townsend, and the Jefferson County
PUD, and other public and private water purveyors, update the Coordinated Water System
Plan (CWSP), based on the ,joint population forecast and new data pertaining to future
water supply and demand. The water supply and service provisions of an updated CWSP
may require revisions to land use elements and community plans. Comprehensive plans
shall include water quality and water conservation policies and standards. As the water
resource management discussions known as the "Chelan Agreement Process" proceed, any
agreements arising from these discussions will be incorporated into local plans and
policies.
8
~~~ 18 ~~~~ p ~ .~~;~~
POLICY #3
POLICY ON JOINT COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING
WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS
(Note: Currently there is only one incorporated UGA within Jefferson County, the City of
Port Townsend. As these planning policies are intended to guide the development of
comprehensive plans now and in the future, they anticipate that additional areas may
incorporate in Jefferson County.)
1. Incorporated UGAs within the County and each provider of urban services within UGAs
will assist the County in the planning, coordination, and establishment of urban services
and facilities to serve the projected twenty year population.
2. The County and incorporated UGAs will coordinate the development and implementation
of plans for the provision of county-wide services including public safety, transportation,
solid waste, storm drainage facilities, water and waste water utilities.
3. Incorporated UGAs will work cooperatively with the County to identify and protect open
space corridors. This process will include:
• identification of open space corridors and urban separators.
• identification of open space lands and corridors within UGAs.
9
vlx.. ~.8 Fas; o ~,`~34
• identification of implementation strategies and regulatory and non-regulatory
techniques to protect the corridors.
4. By interlocal agreement, incorporated urban areas and the County will establish a
ftamework for joint planning, SEPA environmental review and decision making for
unincorporated lands located within the incorporated urban area UGA.
5. Incorporated UGAs will coordinate with the County to assure joint review for addressing
those development activities of a regional nature, such as a regional shopping center or
large industrial complex. The purpose of this agreement is to insure impacts of a
regional nature are addressed and the goals of the GMA are realized.
b. Due to the large scale nature and the impacts associated with fully contained communities,
such developments should not be considered in the impending update of the County
Comprehensive Plan. After the plan has been adopted, a thorough study of these types
of development should be undertaken. If found to be a viable development option, the
comprehensive plan will be modified to include provisions for fully contained communities.
7. The County and each incorporated UGA which has a pending development proposal shall
ensure timely circulation of development applications for review and comment by other
agencies with jurisdiction.
10
POLICY #4
POLICY ON THE SITING OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
OF A COUNTY OR STATE WI1~E SIGNIFICANCE
1. Essential public facilities are defined as: "Public or privately-owned facilities that are
required to accommodate basic public needs, including those facilities that are typically
difficult to site, including Local waste handling and treatment facilities such as landfills,
drop-box sites and sewage treatment facilities, airports, state educational facilities, essential
state public facilities, regional transportation and stormwater drainage, utility facilities, state
and local correctional facilities, and in-patient facilities (including substance abuse facilities,
mental health facilities and group homes).
2. The County and incorporated UGAs will jointly develop specific siting criteria for siting
essential public facilities. The proposed criteria will be considered in the drafting of
comprehensive plan policy addressing this issue. Elements of siting criteria should
include, but not be limited to the following:
• proximity to major transportation routes and essential infrastructure.
• land use compatibility with surrounding area.
• potential environmental impacts.
• effects on resource and critical areas.
• proximity to UGA.
• public costs and benefits including operation and maintenance.
• current capacity and location of equivalent. facilities.
11
w~t._ 1~ F~~ 0 1~~2
.
the existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
activity .
3. Comprehensive plans and development regulations will not preclude the siting of essential
public facilities, however standards may be generated to insure that reasonable com-
patibility with other land uses can be achieved.
4. Essential public facilities sited outside of urban growth areas should be self-supporting and
not require the extension, construction, or maintenance of urban services and facilities
unless no practicable alternative exists.
Criteria will be established that address the
provision of services when siting an essential public facility.
Essential public facilities
shall not be located in resource lands or critical areas if incompatible.
12
'tot
18 rAb£
0 1733
POLICY #5
POLICY ON COUNTY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND STRATEGIES
1. The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) will develop a
regional transportation plan for the Eastern Olympic and Kitsap Peninsula area. The City
and County will each develop a transportation element to the comprehensive plan that
emphasizes Local transportation needs. In developing these transportation elements, specif-
is linkages with the regional plan will be undertaken to assure consistency between the
two documents.
2. Service standards for highways, arterial, and transit routes will be coordinated and adopted
at a county-wide level. These standards may vary depending on the type of development
pattern anticipated (i.e. urban vs. rural) or by the specific growth management objectives
being considered. When a variance to level of service standards is established, it will be
clearly delineated in the transportation and land use element of the comprehensive plan.
3. In developing the County's six year road program, the priority of focus should be:
• first, to maintain or expand capacity within the UGAs.
• second, to maintain or expand capacity for transportation to and from UGAs and
regional centers.
4. The land use and transportation elements of the comprehensive plan will be used by
Jefferson Transit as a guide in the development of its service delivery strategy. The
I3
thrust of this strategy is to increase ridership and expand transportation options within
UGAs, between UGAs, and between the county and the region at Large.
5. Jefferson International Airport will remain the public Link. to the larger air transportation
system. The Port of Port Townsend will have the lead responsibility to develop a service
delivery strategy for this mode of transportation consistent with the transportation and land
use elements of the County comprehensive plan.
6. The development ar expansion of any air-based or water-based transportation system will
require specific linkage with the ground transportation system and compatibility with the
land use element of the comprehensive plans.
7. In establishing the land use element of comprehensive plans and the level of service
standards for transportation systems within UGAs, the City and County wi11 insure that
use densities, design elements and development policies are supportive and make
accommodation for public transit and non-motorized farms of transportation.
8. The transportation element of the comprehensive plans will designed around the fotlawing
principles:
• seek to increase efficiency of the existing transportation system.
• emphasize the movement of people and goads first, and vehicles second.
14
~'~ ~ 8 Fps Q 1.7'~~
• encourage and integrate non-motorized modes and high occupancy vehicles in
transportation system design.
• encourage employers to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques. This is particularly true in the review of new employment generators
at a fixed location.
• seek to assure that the proportionate share of casts of new or upgraded transpor-
tation facilities are borne by those who create the need for the facility, as well as
those who benefit from it.
9. The Transportation Plan element will provide a summary and analysis of planning
information including:
• land use assumptions upon which the transportation element is based including:
population, employment by type, recreation, comprehensive land use designations,
and the density of current and projected development including the ratio of single
and multi-family units to total housing units within UGAs.
• level of service standards for arterials and collectors.
• an analysis and forecast of future transportation needs.
• evaluate the operation and maintenance of transportation facilities in a manner
which considers present and future operation and maintenance costs.
incorporate pedestrian and bicycle travel as part of the transportation element within
a coordinated and regional basis. The bicycle and pedestrian component shall be a
15
~~~~ ~ $ Fab Qf ~.'73+6~
part of the funding component of the capital improvement program far
transportation improvements.
1Q. The adopted level of service standards will be used in evaluating concurrency for long-
range transportation planning, development review and programming of transportation
improvements.
16
+o~ 18 Fa6€ 0 :1~'~7
POLICY ~6
POLICY ON THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1. For planning purposes the definition of "affordable housing" is: Those housing units
available for pwchase or rent to individuals or families with a gross income between the
federally recognized poverty level and the median income for working families in Jefferson
County; and who's costs, including utilities, would nat exceed 36% of gross income.
2. The provision of affordable housing is acknowledged as a general public need and will be
addressed in Jefferson County through private sector programs and projects. Local
government should not assume a direct role in the ownership or administration of public
assisted housing to meet low income needs, rather this should be left to private, non-
profit or quasi-public entities.
3. The housing and/or land use elements of comprehensive plans will include an assessment
of land available and the process of siting special purpose housing (such as homeless
shelters, group homes, etc.), to ensure that such housing can be accommodated.
4. A sufficient quantity of land will be appropriately zoned or designated to accommodate a
wide range of housing types, densities and mixtures. Multi-family housing should only be
located within UGAs or rural centers.
17
O F~E~ Q 1~~~
'Y lii.
5. An affordable housing strategy will be developed as part of the housing element of the
comprehensive plan. This affordable pausing strategy will examine existing regulations
and policies to identify opportunities to encourage the provision of affordable housing
mechanisms such as accessory dwelling units ("mother-in-law") or efficiency apartments,
density bonuses, mitigation fees waivers, priority permit processing and the like.
6. Each UGA shall accommodate its fair share of housing affordable to low and moderate
income households according to its percentage share of the county population and by
promoting a balanced mix of diverse pausing types.
7. Undeveloped land awned by the public entities will be inventoried and those that are
appropriately located should be considered far development of low income housing.
Consideration of assembling these parcels for development by non-profit housing
organizations or private developers should be encouraged.
$. The housing element will include criteria far locating higher density residential areas near
public facilities and services, commercial services, arterial or within walking distance of
jobs or transit.
18
vim. ~, 8 Fa~~ Q i'7~:~
POLICY #7
POLICY ON COUNTY-WIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
1. The private sector is primarily responsible for the creation of economic opportunity in
Jefferson County. The responsibility of the public sector is to assure that these activities
are carried out consistent with defined community and environmental values. To this end,
comprehensive plan should clearly identify these values in order that economic opportunity
is not lost due to confusion or unreliability of process. Particular attention will be given
to the needs of non-service sector businesses and industries as a strategy to increase wage
earning potential within the community.
2. An economic development element should be prepared and included in the County's and
incorporated areas' comprehensive plan. This element should identify and designate
adequate areas far commercial, retail, and industrial growth necessary to sustain and meet
future population and employment forecasts. The economic development element shall be
coordinated with the capital facility, land use and utilities elements of the comprehensive
plan.
3. Each UGA and rural center is considered the commercial and business "hub" in their
respective area of the County. UGAs should be viewed as regional service and retail
centers, while the rural center focus is on local community retail and service needs, and
transient accommodations.
19
;~~ ~8 Faso o ~~4~-
4. Certain industries due to their size or type of operation, or due to their dependance on
the local resource base shauld not be located within the boundaries of UGAs. When
locating these types of activities outside of UGAs, special attention must be given to
assure that the activity will not promote "urban development" of the surrounding area.
These activities will need to be self-supporting and not require the extension of urban
services.
S. The Port of Port Townsend's legislative authority should be utilized as a tool to
implement industry and trade strategies; including the promotion of employment
opportunities, the consolidation and parceling of property, and the development of
infrastructure to meet the needs of industry consistent with comprehensive plans and
development regulations.
20
y~ ~ ~ F~F ~ i`74:1.
POLICY #$
POLICY ON RURAL AREAS
1. Rural areas are those lands located outside of UGAs and resource lands. These areas are
characterized by low density development, open spaces, minimal public services, resource
dependent activities, and industries; and outdoor recreational facilities. Activities such as
regional retail-commercial facilities, business office parks and similar htgh intensity land
uses are considered urban in nature and are inconsistent with rural area designations. The
rural element of the comprehensive plan will be designed to recognize and maintain the
unique character of individual rural areas without degrading the environment or creating
the need for urban level of services.
2. The concept of clustering or density transfer is considered a positive tool in maintaining
the character of rural areas. This concept assists in more efficient delivery of public
services, minimizes the need for additional infrastructure, and at the same time maximizes
land available for rural uses. Clustering of new development is preferred in rural areas.
3. Level of service standards will be adopted which identifies the type and scale of public
facility and infrastructure improvements anticipated for rural areas and rural centers.
Typically these will include:
• emergency services.
• transportation and roads.
21
'i~l~ ~ U F~6~ ~ 1'74:
individual septic systems.
individual or community water systems,
• storm water and water quality.
4. Parcel sizes established for rural areas of the county should be commensurate with the
character of existing rural communities. This policy anticipates that rural areas will
maintain a variety of acreage parcels.
5. Rural centers are those existing unincorporated places which serve the retail commercial
and service needs of the local area. These areas will be delineated and recognized in the
comprehensive plan consistent with level of service standards. Land uses within these
centers include:
• shopping, employment, and services for residents, supplies for resource industries,
including commercial, industrial, and tourism development at a scale that preserves
the surrounding rural characteristics.
residential development, including small-lot single-family and multi-family; and
mixed-use developments.
• cammunity facilities and services necessary to support the rural center and promote
pedestrian mobility.
6. The rural element of the comprehensive plan will recognize existing industry located
outside UGAs, as well as establish a framework far the siting of industries which, due to
za .~"74~t
vrlf~ 1 ~ ray; Q
their size, resource dependence, or incompatibility with UGAs, would be better suited to
locate in rural areas. Provisions will be made to ensure that adjacent land uses are not
converted to urban uses due to the proximity of these developments or to infrastructure
necessary to support them.
23
POLICY #9
POLICY ON FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
i . Include a fiscal impact assessment on the provision of public capital facilities, that are
intended to serve the community, as an ongoing part of the comprehensive planning
process. This assessment will include project revenues and expenditures and an analysis
of the cumulative fiscal impacts of providing governmental services to accommodate the
targeted population. The purpose of the fiscal assessment is to assure that projected
capital costs can be reasonably supported within the capabilities of the community.
2. Within the elements of the comprehensive plan, incentives and non-regulatory options will
be identif ed and developed as alternatives to regulatory programs in the irnpiementation of
comprehensive plan policy.
3. The City, any future incorporated UGA, and the County will address issues of tax
revenue sharing, the provision of regional services, annexations, and similar fiscal
components through the development of interlocal agreements.
24
POLICY #10
POLICY ON USE, MONITORING, REVIEW AND AMENDMENT
1. The County-wide Planning Policies will be utilized ta:
• establish a framework far the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and
supporting regulations.
• provide a foundation for establishing loc;aliy defined terms, and to determine
consistency with the criteria of the Growth Management Act.
• coordinate and assure consistency among plans of the County, UGAs, special
purpose districts and service providers.
2. The Growth Management Steering Committee will serve as a regional oversight body
during the development of the comprehensive plans. Once unincorporated UGAs are iden-
tified, representation of the unincorporated UGA will be included on the steering
committee. The committee will review draft plans far consistency with these policies in
an advisory capacity and report its findings to the appropriate jurisdiction.
3. These policies shall be periodically reviewed and may be amended in the fallowing
manner:
• the amendment is placed in writing and includes a brief explanation of why the
amendment is warranted, and
25
1'~~!~
the amendment is reviewed and commented an by the Growth Management Steering
Committee or its successor entity, and
• a public hearing is conducted by the County prior to amending these policies, and
• the amendment is agreed to by both the County Board of Commissioners and City
Council of incorporated UGAs, and
• the amendment is adopted by the County Board of Commissioners.
26
Vt~L ~ ~ ~A~;` U ~ 4~
~ ~ ~..
County-Wide Planning Policies:
A Strategic Analysis
~~~C~~.~
The opening section of the Growth Management Act (SHB 2929) sets forth a
legislative finding which establishes a framework for the text that follows:
"that uncoordinated and unplanned growth together with a lack of common goals
expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a
threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and
high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the state."
1
This language has implications for Jefferson and other Counties planning under
the Growth Management Act (GMA). The spontaneous, unstructured growth and develop-
ment of the past is no longer acceptable. Rather, growth and development shoulb be
managed in an effort to minimize its negative impacts and maximize its benefits. This is
the central message of the Growth Management Act.
Although the word "growth" is not defined, as a minimum it must be construed
to encompass sufficient economic and social development to accommodate a 20-year
population, (as projected by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, OFM)
and the physical development (housing, business, industry and the like) of the community
associated with such accommodation. It is also assumed that growth management in a
fundamental sense is to be people-oriented and involve the community in delineating a
vision for the future. The words "managed growth" suggest an action to realize an
outcome that would not otherwise occur.
How to reconcile the presumption of growth and development with the com-
munity's overall vision of a preferred future will require a measure of political dexterity
and measured response on the part of decision-makers. In the Jefferson 2000 public
opinion survey, a desire to hold on to the past is accompanied by fine endorsement of the
spirit of the Growth Management Act. The task of the planners and the decision-makers is
to bring together these seemingly opposite points of views into a common statement of
how the community should grow and development over time. In the dynamics of public
decision-making, political rules will determine how issues are phrased, resolved or avoided.
Ultimately how various interests are accommodated will be settled in the political arena.
Manage growth inevitably leads to redistribution. Whether this redistribution is
expressed in terms of property rights, land availability, equity, or new found public access,
the potential for creating winners and losers exists and must be factored into any manage-
ment scheme.
The Growth Management Act grants to the county and city wide discretion in
deciding on the extent to which a more directed management scheme will be used to alter
the status. quo. The nature and extent of policy direction flows from an examination of
those strategic issues which are germane to each discrete policy subject area as delineated
in RSHB 1025 and augmented by local discretion. In the context of planning the word
"policy" is construed to mean a scheme selected from among alternatives to guide and in
general to delineate a preferred course of action. Taken as a whole, a policy framework is
designed to provide a synthesis, of various selected policy options and provides a corner-
stone for testing internal and external plan consistency.
Section 2 of RSHB 1025 recognizes Jefferson County as a regional government.
Accordingly, it is the county which must adopt county-wide planning policies. At the
same time, this is to be accomplished in collaboration with the City of Port Townsend.
2
Eight policy issues are cited, and must be addressed. This number has been increased to
ten so as to include rural development and provide the context in their utility.
The task of this White Paper is limited to providing a statement of Legislative
Intent for each policy assignment, together with a brief discussion of those Strategic Issues
which was addressed in the process of formulating the composite County-wide Planning
Policies.
NOTE: ATTACHED IS A LISTING OF SECTIONS CITED FROM SHB 2929
AND RSHB 1025, TOGETHER WITH RCW NUMBER EQUIVALENTS.
3
ATTACHMENT
SHB 2929
SECTION TITI-E
1 Findings and Intent
2 Planning Goals
3 Definitions
5 Guidelines to Classify Agriculture, Forest,
and Mineral Land and Critical Areas
7 Comprehensive .Plans-Mandatory Elements
10 Comprehensive Plans-Must be Coordinated
11 Comprehensive Plans-Urban Growth Areas
15 Identification of Lands Useful for Public Purposes
16 Identification of Open Space
17 Natural Resource Lands and Critical Area Designations
38 Additional Tax etc.
42 State preempts certain tax fields, etc.
43 Impact Fees-Intent
44 Impact Fees-Local Ordinances, etc.
48 Impact Fees-Definitions
52 Approval of Subdivisions and Dedications, etc.
54 Regional Transportation Organization Authorized
55 Regional Transportation Organizations-Duties
58 Transportation Plans Must Conform to Comprehensive
59 Transportation Plans Must Conform to Comprehensive
60 Transportation Plans Must Conform to Comprehensive
86 Role of Growth Strategies Commission
RSHB 1025
RCW
36.70A.010
36.70A.020
36.70A.030
36.70A.050
36.70A.070
36.70A.100
36.70A.110
36.70A.150
36.70A.160
36.70A.170
82.46.035
82.02.020
82.02.050
82.02.060
82.02.090
58.17.110
47.80.020
47.80.030
Plans36.81.121
P1ans35.77.010
PladaS.58.2795
36.70.800
1 Siting Essential Public Facilities
2 County-wide Planning Policies
3 Amends SHB 2929, Section 20
16 New Fully Contained Communities
21 Amends SHB 2929, Section 17-Forest, Agriculture and
Mineral Resource Lands and Critical Areas-Development
Regulations
36.70A.200
36.70A.210
36.70A.190
36.70A.350
36.70A.060
4
Policy No. 1
To draft a policy statement to implement the provisions of RCW 36.70A.110
concerning the designation of urban growth areas.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act which
address Urban Growth Areas:
SHB 2929, Section 11 (RCW 36.70A.110), requires that counties designate urban
growth areas that include each city and incorporated town in the county. These urban
growth boundaries are to:
• Contain areas within which urban growth is encouraged and outside of
which development can occur only if it is not urban in nature;
• Include territory outside of a city only if such territory already is charac-
terized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized by
urban growth;
• Include areas and densities sufficient to permit the Urban growth projected
to occur over the succeeding 20-year period. Urban densities include
greenbelt and open space areas.
SHB 2929, Section 3 (14), provides a definition of "urban growth." The Growth
Management Act also establishes a growth boundary designation process that calls for
cities to propose a boundary following consultation with the county. If the jurisdictions do
not reach agreement on the proposed boundary, the county designates the boundary and
justifies it in writing.
SHB 1025, Section 16 allows the county to establish a process allowing new,
fully contained communities to locate outside of the initially designated urban growth areas.
A portion of the 20-year population projection must be reserved for this purpose.
The goal as set forth in SHB 2929, Section 2 (1) and (2), is to encourage
development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be
provided in an efficient manner and to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped
land into sprawling, low-density development.
5
Strategic Issues:
In its most fundamental sense, the purpose of designating urban growth areas is
to promote in-fill and compaction of development within existing built-up areas. It
represents an effort to manage the rate, amount, type, and location of development with the
intent to: 1) encourage increased density in already developed areas, 2) make more
efficient use of public services, and 3) protect rural areas and resource lands.
Port Townsend as an incorporated city is, by definition, an urban growth area.
For the county as a whole, the 20-year population projection provided by the Office of
Financial Management (OFM) shows an increase of 8,523 individuals over the base year
1990. Using the 1990 census person per household figure of 2.27 persons, the community
will need to accommodate an additional 3,750 households. Based on historical trends,
about 35 percent of this growth would choose to locate in the City of Port Townsend for
an increase of 2,983 individuals, or 1,314 households by the year 2010. However, if the
planning goal is to encourage a higher density within existing urban growth areas, then a
portion of the remaining urban population projection for the unincorporated area of the
county should be allocated to Port Townsend.
Section 3 (14) of SHB 2929 provides that urban growth refers to growth that;
"makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures,
and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with
its primary use..." as natural resource land.
Given this definition of urban growth, there is ample opportunity for designating
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) outside of the city limits of Port Townsend.
The purpose of urban growth areas is to accommodate projected population
growth, within or immediately adjacent to existing developed areas. In Jefferson County,
"urban" is a relative term. Certainly Port Hadlock or Port Ludlow are urban when
compared to Gardiner, but not when compared to Port Angeles. The difference is one of
scale and intensity.
The question and central policy issue becomes, what areas of unincorporated
Jefferson County are characterized by "urban growth" and should be included in a UGA?
What area adjacent to the City of Port Townsend is characterized by "urban growth" or is
likely to convert to urban growth and should be included in the Port Townsend UGA?
What about unincorporated areas that may not be urban in nature, but which are developed
beyond typical rural densities, such as Brinnon, Quilcene, Discovery Bay and the like?
The next question to be answered is whether there is sufficient infrastructure to
accommodate the projected population within proposed UGAs? Also, will there be the
availability of financial resources needed to develop infrastructure concurrent with new
development? To answer these questions, the target population would need to be applied
6
to proposed UGAs, then system capacity and resource availability analysis could be
completed. Or, the capacity of existing systems and infill potential could be evaluated, and
the target population distributed to areas where capacity exists.
There are a number of variables and somewhat limited information to definitively
answer questions regarding carrying capacity. However, the assumptions under which the
availability and provision of urban services, as well as the population the UGA is targeted
to accommodate, needs to be established before the city limits are ~ formalized. It is
anticipated that given existing development patterns and the land area of the City of Port
Townsend, the UGAs established will accommodate more than the OFM population
projection. This not only will provide options for the location of new development or
redevelopment, but will provide a degree of buffer should the forecast underestimate
populations trends.
In proposing UGAs in the unincorporated area of the county consideration should
be given to updating existing planning documents, such as the Jefferson County Com-
prehensive Plan and its Community Plans, water system and sewer plans, road and high-
way plans, historical development patterns and platted properties, and similar documents
which guide public and private sector investments in the community.
7 and 8
Policy Z•
To draft a policy statement for the promotion of contiguous and orderly devel-
opment of urban growth areas and the provision of urban services to such areas.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act which
relate to this subject matter.
SHB 2929, Section 11, states that urban growth should be located first
in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public
facility and service capacity to service such development and second in
areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a
combination of both existing public facilities and services and any
additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by
either public or private sources.
SHB 2929, Section 2 (12), is to ensure that those public facilities and
services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve
the development at the time the development is available for occupancy
and use without decreasing current service levels below locally es-
tablished minimum standards.
SHB 2929, Section 7 (1), requires that each comprehensive plan include a
land use element designating the proposed uses of land. This will include
population and building densities as well as providing for the protection of
the quality and quantity of ground water.
SHB 2929, Section 7 (3), requires preparation of a capital facility plan,
a utility element, and a transportation element, with level of service
standards which must be maintained "concurrent" with development and
that are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
SHB 2929, Section 16, requires that each county and city shall identify
open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. They
shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and
connection of critical areas. The county or City may seek to acquire
these open space corridors using funds authorized by RCW 84.24.230
or other sources.
SHB 2929, Section 52, requires jurisdictions to make findings that
proposed subdivision have made adequate provisions for the public
9
health, safety and welfare, necessary services, utilities (including potable
water), roads, and recreation sites, etc.) prior to approving the sub-
division.
Strategic Issues:
In considering the examination of contiguous and orderly development of UGAs,
the GMA goal should be kept in mind. Urban development should be encouraged only
where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided concurrently with
new development and in an efficient manner.
The intent of the GMA is both to reduce sprawling, low-density development,
and to avoid the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land. Although only a per-
centage of land is available for urban development at any one time, it is important that
land supply and densities within a UGA be sufficient to ensure a climate appropriate to a
competitive development market.
For this analysis, the idea of contiguous development is defined to mean that
development which will occur within designated UGA's and the ot'derly expansion or
creation of new UGA's in the future. This opens up a wide area for consideration of
supporting policies. The potential issues pertaining to the promotion of orderly develop-
ment are numerous. This includes (1) how to preclude "leap frog" development and
promote "infill" within a UGA, (2) how to design an orderly process for establishing
standards for public facilities, while still retaining a measure of site-specific flexibility, (3)
what of public service policies such as no extensions outside UGAs without annexation, (4)
what of both annexation and incorporation policies for UGAs, (5) how should the problem
of concurrency be addressed, and (6) what should be the role of special purpose districts in
the decision-making process? There is also the crucial question of the optimal level of
required capital facilities both within and among UGAs. How and by whom should this
issue be resolved?
The notion of contiguous and orderly development must also give consideration
to the treatment of critical Iands located within UGAs. This includes identification of open
space corridors within and between UGAs, plus provision of Land for recreation, trails, and
wildlife habitat. How can the provision of services and utilities be made consistent with
the precepts of environmental protection? How and by whom should the utility and related
facilities be financed and paid for?
To some extent it will be necessary to consider those characteristics peculiar to
rural areas which impact on the viability and well being of UGAs, and vise versa. An
example is found in ground water availability and quality. The extension of water systems
will inevitably pass through rural areas to provide service to UGA's. To what extent
should rural areas then receive benefit from the availability of community water? In
10
addition, consideration should be given to services to rural areas stemming from facilities
located by coincidence in Port Townsend, such as transit, the hospital, and the port. These
are an exception to the rule that urban government services not be provided to rural areas.
It follows that these considerations must be factored in to the complexity of decisions
pertaining to contiguous and orderly development of urban growth areas.
Finally, orderly development of UGAs presumes that prior to approval of
subdivisions and other development activities, adequate provision will be assured for
necessary supporting services and utilities.
11 and I2
Policy No. 3•
To draft a policy statement for joint county and city planning within urban
growth areas.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act relating to
joint county and city planning within urban growth areas.
SHB 1025, Section 2, recognizes that counties are regional governments
within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban
govenunental services within urban growth areas. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to alter the land use power of cities.
SHB 2929, Section 10, requires that comprehensive plans of each
county or city be coordinated and consistent. Counties also have the
responsibility for coordination with other counties having common
borders.
SHB 2929, Section 11, provides that an urban growth area may include
territory located outside of a city only if it is already characterized by
urban growth. In designating urban growth areas, the county shall
consult with the city and the city shall propose that location of an
urban growth area. Urban government services provided by cities
should not be available to rural areas.
SHB 2929, Section 15, requires identification of lands useful for public
purposes such as utility and transportation corridors, landfills, sewage
treatment facilities, recreation and schools. The county shall work with
the city and state to identify areas of shared needs for public facilities.
A jointly agreed upon prioritized listing of lands needed for identified
public purposes will be prepared, together with a capital budget to
cover required acquisition costs.
The GMA provides two funding sources for development activity. Public facility
impact fees are authorized by SHB 2929, Section 43, as defined in Section 48. Real estate
taxes are authorized by SHB 2929, Section 38.
In addition to legislative intent shown above, a number of related citations are
listed in Policy No. 1 on the designation of UGAs, and in Policy No. 2 on the promotion
of contiguous and orderly development of UGAs.
13
Strategic Issues:
Port Townsend is responsible for developing and maintaining land use controls
within city limits. County planning policies -will have some impact on city planning
decisions. This largely applies to land use decisions effective outside of but adjacent to
the Port Townsend urban growth area.
In addition, the county will assume major responsibility for long-tens planning
decisions applicable to unincorporated UGAs. The county also will be responsible for the
coordination of planning policies with the neighboring counties of Clallam, Kitsap, and
Mason.
Ample opportunity exists for the city, county, and other impacted entities, such
as special purpose districts, to better coordinate with each other to ensure consistency with
planning policies. Consistency may be interpreted to mean adhering to the same principles,
standards, or course of action in the pursuit of compatibility among the several operating
entities.
Clearly there is no fixed limit to areas of coordination and joint planning,
including planning of infrastructure and financing. The same applies for transition services
among urban growth areas. The scope for cooperation and coordination among discrete
entities is limited only by the perceived mutuality of interest. This is particularly ap-
plicable with respect to relations between the city of Port Townsend and the County.
Inherent in the idea of joint county-city planning is the need to reexamine and
refine current procedures for county-city planning. For example, to what extent is there a
need for joint development of land use controls and where would they be appropriate? In
a county-wide context, how much of projected growth for affordable housing, industrial
development, or essential facilities, should be attributed to the Port Townsend urban growth
area, and how much to unincorporated urban growth areas? Also, what is the most
feasible way to implement the policy that urban governmental services will not be provided
in rural areas?
Cooperation and coordination takes on added meaning for county-wide activities.
These include capital facilities such as parks, utilities, transportation, and the port complex,
and services such as police, hospital, solid waste, public health and environmental protec-
tion.
Clearly there is a close relationship between joint county-city planning in the
designation of UGAs, the promotion of contiguous and orderly development of UGAs, and
for unincorporated areas within the Port Townsend UGA. It follows that county-city
planners have wide latitude to exercise discretion in interpreting the legislative intent in
these instances. The GMA goal of "managed growth" must entail recognition of con-
siderable collaboration between the city and the county, and other service providers.
14
In the spirit of growth management, both the County and the City will remain in
a learning mode for the foreseeable future. Therefore, joint planning within UGAs will be
construed to mean a continuing dialogue and collaboration concerning the level of service
appropriate for urban areas, "fair share distribution" of population and their particular needs
for affordable housing, recreation and the like, and a specific arrangement for addressing
unincorporated areas of the City's UGA.
15
Policy No. 4•
To draft a policy statement for the siting of public capital facilities of a county-
wide or state-wide nature.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act which
relate to the siting of capital facilities.
RSHB 1025, Section 1, requires that county and city comprehensive
plans include a process for identifying and siting essential public
facilities including those facilities that are typically difficult to site,
such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transporta-
tion facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling
facilities, in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental
health facilities, and group homes. No local comprehensive plan or
development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public
facilities.
SHB 2929, Section 7 (1), requires that each comprehensive plan
include a land use element designating the general location of land uses
for public utilities and public facilities. Section 7 (3) requires that
capital facilities include asix-year plan covering proposed locations and
capacities as well as funding sources. Section 7 (4) calls for a utilities
element consisting of the general location and capacity of utility and
telecommunication lines.
SHB 2929, Section 15, each county and city comprehensive plan shall
identify lands useful for public purposes such as utility corridors,
transportation corridors, sewage treatment facilities, recreation, schools,
and other public uses. Capital acquisition budgets shall reflect jointly
agreed upon priorities and time schedules.
Strategic Issues:
The language of Section 2 (c) of SHB 1025 is concerned with a policy for siting
"public capital facilities." Section 1, however, relates simply to a process for identifying
and siting essential "public facilities." The cited listing of facilities is illustrative only, and
is at variance with the definition of public facilities as contained in Section Z (IZ) of SHB
2929. Section 15, in turn, refers to lands useful for "public purposes." Included are utility
and telecommunication corridors. This departs from the idea of "public" facilities to
16
include quasi-public investor-owned entities. It follows that the language of GMA provides
an opportunity for prudent and resourceful interpretation.
If an investment is labelled a "capital" facility, then, under Section 7 (30 of SHB
2929, preparation of a six-year capital facilities plan is required, including a financing
scheme, (see attachments). Defining the same undertaking as a "public facility" would
avoid this extra burden, as the GMA contains no definition of a capital facility.
The GMA provides for annual revisions to comprehensive plans. If this desirable
flexibility is used to compromise the integrity of the planning process, then any resultant
comprehensive plan may represent no more than the triumph of form over substance.
Hence the importance of a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities.
Clearly any meaningful process must be coordinated with a similar process for making land
use decisions.
In the case of transportation corridors, coordination must include the Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) with which the county is a member. As for
utility and telecommunication corridors, the concerned entities are, as noted, investor-
owned, operating in aquasi-public mode.
The siting of public facilities could be frustrated by regulations concerning
resource lands and critical areas, to the degree that these areas may be limiting to siting
options. A related issue is that of "fair-share." Certain essential public facilities, such as
electric sub-stations or correctional facilities, may be considered unsightly, displeasing,
disruptive or intrusive to local neighborhoods. Yet in the larger public interest, including
efficiency and equity considerations, neighborhood concerns .may need to be over-ridden.
This "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome must be balanced with the public interest,
not only in the siting of said facilities, but in the cost-effectiveness of siting decisions.
This is not to ignore otherwise legitimate neighborhood concerns and issues, but rather to
put them in context with the greater public interest.
Any process for identifying and siting essential public facilities will inevitably
encounter the problem of finding the optimum relationship between fixed investment costs
and long term operating costs, including maintenance. For example, it may be more
expedient to site an objectionable public facility in areas of low population; however the
long term cost of operating such a facility may result in the chosen location being the least
cost effective decision. This type of economic trade-off may not be worth the location
decision. In addition, a heavy initial investment may be appropriate in order to minimize
operating cost overtime. In any event, the challenge to siting essential public facilities
cannot be divorced from the constraint of funding availability. This, in turn, requires a
process for establishing priorities and time-phasing.
If the process for identifying and siting essential public facilities is to be pre-
scriptive, then the question is raised whether a desired end should be realized through
17
incentives or through regulatory action. This invites some sort of benefit-cost analysis. In
the end it may prove that it is a combination of both prescription and incentives that
renders the proper balance for siting decisions.
Since the present interest is with county-wide siting of essential public facilities,
allowance must be made for possible differential criteria as between urban and rural
sitings. Here consideration might be given to public involvement, with an emphasis on
coordination with special purpose districts.
The role and impact of essential public facilities may vary. Schools and utilities
essentially respond to growth, while transportation facilities may initiate as well as respond
to growth and development. Likewise each public facility might invoke a different
response to concurrency for synchronizing with anticipating development. Account also
must be taken of the private sector response to public facility development. Finally, a
sufficient process for siting essential public facilities must seek to mitigate any overlap or
conflict between county and city as well as between the county and concerned state
agencies.
18
Policy No. 5:
To draft a policy statement covering county-wide transportation facilities and
strategies.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act which
relate to county-wide transportation facilities.
SHB 2929, Section 2(3), calls for encouraging efficient multi-model
transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coor-
dinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
SHB 2929, Section 7(6), requires that county and city comprehensive
plans include a transportation element that implements, and is consistent
with, the land use element of the plans. Among the sub-elements
which must be included is the requirement for (a) land use assumptions
used in estimating travel, (b) facilities and service needs, (c) analysis of
funding capability, (d) intergovernmental coordination efforts, and (e)
demand-management strategies.
SHB 2929, Section 15, calls for identification of land useful for public
purposes such as transportation corridors. Provision also is made for
land acquisition as may be required.
SHB 2929, Section 54, authorizes creation of regional transportation
planning organization (RTPO). Sections 55 through 60 then prescribes
the duties, structure and funding of such a regional transportation
organization. Section 55(a) states that the RTPO shall certify that the
transportation element of comprehensive plans adopted by county or
city, conforms to Section 7(6) of the GMA while section 55(b) states
that the RTPO adopted regional plan must be consistent with county
and city comprehensive plans.
Strategic Issues:
The GMA goal for transportation is to encourage an efficient multi-model system
based on regional priorities, and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
This language, which is unique to the transportation sector, warrants elaboration.
19
In December 1990, the county and city became charter members to establishment
of a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) consisting of 13
elected officials representing four counties and nine cities, and operating under the guid-
ance of the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT).
Management of the RTPO is vested in an Executive Council composed of the
same 13 elected officials. The Council represents member agencies and carries out
delegated powers including managerial and administrative responsibilities of the PRTPO.
A quorum of nine members is required in order to adopt recommendations of subordinate
bodies. The Council appoints a 25-member Policy Board to participate in policy making.
The Policy Board is composed of major private employers, transit, ports, ferries, county
and city officials. The Board meets quarterly to advise the Council.
The PRTPO also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting
of interested staff members of participating bodies. The TAC provides technical advice to
the PRTPO and the Policy Board on all matters which come before the two bodies.
The Department of Transportation serves as the lead planning agency to perform
such duties as assigned by the Council, including the provision of staff support, coordina-
tion and funding.
Section 55 of the GMA states that an RTPO shall certify the transportation
element of comprehensive plans, adopted by county or city, conforms to Section 7(6) of
the Act. Section 55 also states that the RTPO is to develop and adopt a regional plan that
is consistent with county and city comprehensive plans. PRTPO By-Laws further provide
for assistance to local governments in the preparation of the local transportation plan
element of comprehensive plans.
Under study is a TAC proposal for a regional transportation plan framework,
consisting of nine planning categories encompassing 14 goals and 36 policies. Included as
a planning category is the concept of "level of service" (LOS). LOS represents a policy
statement expressing the level of transportation performance the region would be committed
to maintain throughout the planning period. The demand on facilities would not exceed
established LOS standards. Level of service becomes a component of demand manage-
ment.
During the budget year 1992-93, the draft RTPO Work Program calls for
developing a regional land use strategy including a consensus on policy issues, and
establishing effective local coordination to ensure consistency between state, local, and
regional plans. Financial requirements to meet identified deficiencies then will be calcu-
lated. If financial shortfalls are revealed, goals, policies and strategies will be reassessed
and modified. Regional plan approval by the Secretary of the Department of Transporta-
tion is scheduled for budget year 1993-94.
20
Given the exhaustive nature of the PRTPO Work Program currently underway,
what are those issues which should be addressed through county-wide planning policies?
Clearly there is need for dynamic interaction between the RTPO and local planning bodies.
Whether this should extend to a formal working relationship is not clear. Sufficient
coordination may be achieved working through county staff participating in TAC opera-
tions. What of compatibility between local and regional level of service (LOS) standards?
What is the relationship between land use planning and transportation planning? What
about mode splits between transportation components? What about non-vehicular transpor-
tation options? How can transportation planning help in implementing the land use plan?
What accommodations must the land use plan make for future transportation needs?
One approach to coordinated county and city transportation planning is first to
examine summary data to get a feel for the magnitude of the issue. A few numbers
pertaining to roads, transit, and the airport may be helpful.
VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION - ROAD5
The county is responsible for maintaining 425 miles of road and 26 bridges.
Some 40 to 50 miles of road are resurfaced each year. In 1991, out of $3.8 million
expended on county roads, 46 percent was devoted to road maintenance, 17 percent to new
construction. Road budget revenue that year totalled $4.6 million. Of that, property taxes
generated $1.1 million and another $1.4 million came from federal forest yield. This latter
figure is up significantly from the $0.6 million in forest yield revenue projected in the
1990 road budget. This suggests a change in the federal allocation formula. The indicated
carryover of $0.8 million reflects the "lumpiness" of ~ road funding in relation to calendar
year spending.
The county is required to submit annually asix-year transportation improvement
program. The most recent submission totals $11.4 million, with yearly outlays projected to
increase over time. Less than 30 percent of the plan is shown to be firmly funded. In
this configuration, the emphasis would be first on road maintenance, second on road
intersection capacity and safety improvements, and third on system enhancements. The
plan objective focuses on how best to achieve the maximum road service output per dollar
of cost input. A similar portrayal could be developed for $2.2 million of city roads and
streets, except that funding is treated as assured.
TRANSIT
Jefferson Transit represents a model form of transportation, and is important as a
partial solution to traffic congestion. The magnitude of transit operations is suggested by
referencing selected summary data. In 1991, sales tax revenue totalled $621,344 and motor
21
vehicle excise tax amounted to $588,806, representing 86.7 percent of the years $1,359,344
in operating revenue. This is indicative of the subsidies inherent in transit operations.
End of year 1991 shows that the transit system served some 214,611 riders,
through regular transit service, dial a ride, van pools and special events. System wide,
passenger-generated revenue accounted for just under 10% of the total cost of the service.
A more favorable ratio of revenues versus costs occurred for van pools and specials.
Transit service centers on reducing vehicular traffic and providing a transportation option
for those unable to provide their own means of mobility. In rural areas, the transit serves
to reduce isolation that would otherwise exist.
Of particular importance is the role transit can play in the implementation of
GMA transportation goals. In Jefferson County, where virtually there is no rush hour, the
expectation that transit will play a pivotal role in reducing vehicular trip generation will no
be soon realized. Instead transit must continue to provide direct service to those without
mobility, and to be a convenient option to those who otherwise would drive their own
vehicles.
The number of passengers per trip on fixed route transit is shown to vary from
a low of 5.60 for the former Greyhound run, to a high of 14.02 for the Saturday Fort
Worden run. The Brinnon run averages 7.20 passengers per trip, while the regular Sequim
run comes to 9.33. Other data shows that on the average, fixed route transit moves 13.35
passengers per hour of operations. For Dial-a-Ride service, this comes to 2.64 passengers
per hour.
NON-VEffiCULAR TRANSPORTATION
In 1988, the Port of Port Townsend received a 10 percent matching $2.9 million
federal grant to finance construction of a new macadam airport runway and associated land
purchase and clearing. The Jefferson County International Airport now covers 240 acres,
of which 40 acres are reserved for runway and 22 acres for aviation-related industry. This
leaves more than 175 acres potentially available for development of an industrial park.
Airport activity continues at a modest level. In 1991 the airport recorded 27,000 take-offs
and landings. Of this, Port Ludlow Aviation's activity accounted for about 800 flights to
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and return. General use aviation amounted to 17,000
flights, with the balance consisting of local in-out flights. There were about two dozen
military flights.
In consideration of the FAA grant the Port must undertake a fee and rental
structure for airport facilities and services to make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
The Port is required to have an airport layout plan approved by FAA which, among other
things, is to cover the location of proposed non-aviation areas together with all existing
22
improvements. The planning for non-aviation related activities must be closely coordinated
with the land use element of the comprehensive plans.
FERRY
The Washington State Ferry System provides ferry service to Whidbey Island via
the Port Townsend/Keystone ferry route. Ferry service to greater Puget Sound is provided
via Edmonds and Bainbridge Island. The ferry system has a major impact on the move-
ment of vehicles, particularly within the City of Port Townsend. How the ferry is operated
and the type of service provided influences both economics and demographics. The ferry
route is part of a tourism loop that runs through the North Cascades Highway. In the
summer months, it is not uncommon for the system to experience overloads, particularly on
weekends and holidays. The system both brings visitors into the town as well as congests
traffic when space on the loading dock is at maximum.
There have been attempts to develop a passenger only run from Port Townsend
to areas within greater Puget Sound. This may boost commerce, but may also reduce the
relative isolation Port Townsend experiences, affecting the rate and distribution of popula-
tion growth. The comprehensive plan must give careful consideration to the land use and
transportation implications that expanded ferry service may have on the community.
OTHER
More and more people are given to non-motorized forms of transportation;
walking and bicycling are the two most popular. With the development of UGA, so too
must be the accommodation of non-motorized access ways. These access ways also should
link to the vehicular transportation system, such as transit. An example: the transit system
recently installed bicycle racks to provide service to those choosing to ride a bicycle within
a UGA and having access between UGAs.
As has been demonstrated, the cost of transportation is enormous, be it building
and maintaining the roadways, providing public transportation, developing an airport,
maintaining a ferry system or accommodating non-vehicular options. Each affects the
other, each has its land use implications and each plays an important role in the com-
munity.
23
Policy No. 6:
To draft a policy statement that considers the need for affordable housing for all
economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act which
relate to affordable housing.
SHB 2929, Section 2 (4), would encourage the availability of affordable housing
to all ecconomic segments of the county, promoting a variety of residential
densities and housing types, and preservation of existing housing stock.
SHB 2929, Section 7 (2), requires the inclusion of a housing element in com-
prehensive plans that identifies needs, goals, policies and objectives for the
preservation, improvement and development of housing; identifies sufficient land
for government assisted housing, low income housing, manufactured housing,
group homes, and foster care; and addresses the projected needs of all economic
segments of the community.
SHB 2929, Section 44 (2) authorizes an exemption from payment of impact fees
for low-income housing provided that the impact fees for such development shall
be paid from public funds other than impact fee accounts.
Strategic Issue:
The Growth Management Act provides no definition of "affordable" housing, but
at the federal level housing is said to be affordable:
"When a family pays no more than thirty percent of its gross family
income for rent and utilities, or mortgage payments and other costs."
In itself, this definition would presume smaller, less costly, housing units for
lower income households, if federal standards did not also mandate that housing be decent,
safe, and healthful, without overcrowding.
In providing financial assistance to "low income" families, defined as families
earning 80 percent or lower of county median income, the State Department of Community
Development also uses the 30 percent rule (WAC 365-200-030).
24
The Building Industry Association of Washington supports a less rigorous
definition:
"Housing within a community is affordable when the people who work
and live in the community can obtain decent, safe housing without
undue financial burden and when home ownership is an achievable
aspiration for a broad range of households."
Over the past decade the cost of housing has risen faster than household incom-
es. The result: for many .households as much as 40 percent of household income goes for
housing. A central challenge is how best to achieve less costly housing. The range of
housing costs in Jefferson County are shown illustratively by to the 1990 Census. For
owner-occupied housing units, the data shows:
Number of Average Persons
Units Value Per Unit
Single Family Homes 4,837 $119,054 2.38
Mobile Home or Trailer 1,308 $ 47,526 2.23
A Concept Paper issued by the Washington State House of Representatives,
Committee on Housing points out the changing home ownership patterns between 1980 and
1990. For the under 25 years age group, the share of home ownership is down from 25.0
percent to 11.6 percent. For the age group from 25 to 34 years, it is down from 54.0
percent to 42.1 percent. Conversely, for the age group 65 to 74 years, it is up from 72.0
percent to 81.4 percent. Another change is in married couples. Over the last 30 years,
the share of married couple households has fallen from 72.5 percent to 55.0 percent.
In September 1991, the Department of Community Development issued a report
titled "Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy," showing that for the 7 percent of
the population receiving public assistance, (90 percent of whom occupy rental households)
rent payments average 42 percent of reported income. For low-income households not on
public assistance, more than 50 percent of household income goes for housing. In terms
of the need for public assistance, the Olympic/Clallam Region (which includes Jefferson
County) is seen as "somewhat below" the state average with about 10 percent of low-
income households spending more than 30 percent of income on housing. Household
income for a family of four is shown for the Olympic/Clallam Region to range as follows:
Median Income $30,900
80% of Median $24,720
50% of Median $15,450
30% of Median $ 9,270
Middle Income
Moderate Income
Low Income
Very Low Income
25
A portion of an Olympic Region Profile of Population and Housing, covering the
counties of Clallam, Grays Harbor, and Jefferson shows as follows:
Grays
Clallam Harbor Jefferson
Population and Income
Population, 1990 56,464 175
64, 20,146
% Over Age 65 of Total Population 1990 20.40% _
15.90% 20.70%
% People of Color, 1990 7.00% 6.15% 4.44%
% Hispanic, 1990 2.23% 1.77% 1.51%
Total Employment, 1990 22,840 23,990 8,670
Unemployment rate, 1990 7.04% 9.06% 4.83%
Median Family Income, 1991 $30,900 $31,900 $27,100
Grays
Clallam Harbor Jefferson
Housing Market
Total Households, 1990 22,837 25,514 8,627
Total Housing Units, 1990 25,225 29,932 11,014
% Owner Occupied Housing Units, 1990 70.20% 67.00% 73.90%
Single Family Units 69.00% 69.00% 69.00%
Multi-Family Units 11.00% 15.00% 8.00%
Manufactured Housing Units 20.00% 16.00% 24.00%
HUD Fair Market Rent: 2 Bdrms, 1991 $508.00 $508.00 $508.00
Median Housing Value, 1990 Census $79,200 $49,100 $88,700
Housing Need
Households in Need of Assistance excluding
Homeless, 1989 1,851 2,289 725
Public Assistance Recipients, April, 1991 4,551 7,448 1,235
Shelter Clients (ESAP-funded shelters only),
7/90 - 6/91 1,349 232 276
Working Poor Affordability Gap, 1991 ($160) ($149) ($203)
Housing Assistance
Public Housing Units 1989 270 415 0
Section 8 Certificates, 1989 148 102 115
The $203/month affordability gap shown for Jefferson County represents the
subsidy required under the 30 percent rule for low income households (defined as those
households receiving 51 to 80 percent of the median household income).
26
A 1991 joint Clallam/Jefferson Community Action Council study states that the
median value of a home in Jefferson County increased 95 percent over the past 10 years,
while median family income increased by only 52 percent. In the same period, reliance on
mobile homes has increased 63 percent compared to a 21 percent increase for single family
homes.
The CAC study shows 1990 median family income at $26,400. Given a series
of financing assumptions, the CAC calculations show an affordability gap, reflecting the 30
percent rule, fora 1250 sq. ft., 3-bedroom, .single level rambler with a 2-car garage as
follows:
Development Cost
Sales/Purchase Charge
Total
Jefferson Countv
$100,959
3,029
$103,988
Port Townsend
$86,602
2,658
$91,260
Required Annual Income
Household Income
Median
80% of Median
50% of Median
Affordability Gap
Median
80% of Median
50% of Median
$32,523
$26,400
21,120
13,200
$ 6,123 ($512/mo.)
11,403 (950/mo.)
19,323 (1,610/mo.)
$28,573
$26,400
21,120
13,200
$2,173 ($181/mo.)
7,453 (621/mo.)
15,373 (1,281/mo.)
A CAC study, computation based on amulti-family development project covering
a 750 sq. ft., 2-Bedroom rental unit, again based on median family income of $26,400,
shows as follows:
Jefferson Countv Port Townsend
Development Budget $53,680 $52,005
Required Monthly Rent 676 661
Affordable Rent (30% rule)
Median 660 660
80% of Median 528 528
50% of Median 330 330
Affordable Gap
Median $ 16 $ 1
80% of Median 148 133
50% of Median 346 331
27
What emerges from the data cited in these CAC calculations is the notion of an
obligation to provide affordable housing for all citizens. Using the affordability index of
30 percent, and given cost figures as cited above, over one-half of households in Jefferson
County would be eligible for a housing subsidy. To meet this affordability test would cost
in the tens of millions of dollars each year. Accordingly, the fact that the gap in affor-
dability is related to the large increase in housing costs relative to family income, invites
rethinking the approach to affordable housing. In a sense the problem of affordable
housing can be rendered manageable by a focus on housing costs:
Since demand for housing is responsive to price and demographics, using a
different standard of measurement than the 30 percent rule would in itself diminish the
number of households considered eligible for housing subsidies. As evidenced from the
CAC data, the marketplace exceeds the 30% affordability ceiling. Utilization of limited
federal resources tends to be rationed amongst eligible recipients. For of local financing,
perhaps eligibility standards should be revisited with a view to limiting access to public
subsidies to the lower 10-15 percent of households. Perhaps too a differential standard
should be set, as between one and two income households.
A more feasible alternative would focus on housing cost reduction. For instance,
alternatives to a 1250 sq. ft. single level rambler might include manufactured homes,
mobile homes, travel trailers or high density multi-family housing. Considerations of
equity as well as "fair share" would need to be addressed. What of the working poor?
Should they be given any housing preference? and what preference they should be given, if
any. The concept of "affordable" housing might well be correlated with family income
without a serious compromise to a meaningful standard of living. The idea of "need" may
be treated as a relative term. Also in the search for the meaning of affordable housing for
"all economic segments of the county," advocates of public sector subsidies or direct
housing provision must be alert to the law of unintended consequences, such as the
NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome.
As the options available for pursuing affordable housing are investigated, it is
well to recognize that the GMA calls for "managed" growth; not "no-growth." The intent
of the GMA is to achieve a balance between the provision of an adequate and affordable
housing stock and the protection and maintenance of the environment. Moreover, any
successful housing program must include a close working relationship between the public
and private sectors.
In the final analysis, the public interest will be served best if prior to adoption of
any regulatory or non-regulatory program that would impact the housing market, careful
consideration be given to the accompanying costs and benefits, both internal and external.
Apart- from the direct injection of public funds, a number of actions are available
which can improve affordable housing. Provide an ample supply of buildable land, well
served by supporting infrastructure; include in the expansion of the road system ,additional
28
capacity for yet to be developed land beyond immediate system needs. Allocate the capital
cost of infrastructure equitably with a portion of costs chargeable to new development and
a portion to all users. Allow small private wastewater treatment facilities as an alternative
to large sanitary sewer systems so as to allow for a greater choice in developing sites and
density of development. Develop techniques for increasing housing density,such as flexible
zoning in exchange for developer provision of open space. Consider reduced setbacks, lot
splitting, and accessory dwellings. Insure that new development pays no more than a
proportionate share of impact fees. Examine building standards for less costly construction
options. Regularize and streamline procedural requirements for building permits. Facilitate
the construction of smaller, less costly housing through such techniques as pre-approved
plans. In general, examine the linkages between local policies and housing costs, including
the correlation between the rate of land price increases and the constraints of local regula-
tions. Finally, it is important to assure that the existence of any alleged housing "crisis"
not be government-imposed or created.
29
Policy No. 7•
To draft a policy statement to encourage county-wide economic development and
employment.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act which
address economic development.
SHB 2929, Section 2(5) sets forth a GMA goal to encourage economic
development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,and
encourage in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within
the capacities of the State's natural resources, public services and
public facilities.
SHB 2929, Section 11(1) provides that comprehensive plans designate
urban growth areas, outside of which growth can occur only if it is not
urban in nature.
SHB 2929, Section 64 states a legislative intent to encourage economic
prosperity and balanced economic growth throughout the state. To
accomplish this goal, growth must help build local capacity to accom-
modate additional economic activity in their communities.
SHB 2929, Section 86 takes note of a Growth Strategies Commission created by
executive order, and directs that the commission recommend a specific structure
or process to ensure that comprehensive plans comply with planning goals and
other requirements of the GMA.
Strategic Issues:
The Growth Management Act contains no definition of "economic development,"
but involvement of the private sector is clearly a prerequisite. This is made clear in
language of the Governor's Growth Strategies Commission Report (page 9) which states:
"The ups and downs of our economy are market-based. The State
government acts in the margins of the market-place, able to influence
only a small portion of economic activity. In that margin the State can
have a meaningful effect if it focuses its investments to leverage
30
change... Capital invested in public facilities generates its own
economic activity and provides a foundation for private investment."
Since SHB 1025, Section 2 represents a legislative response to recommendations
of the Growth Strategies Commission, the design of policy guidance pertaining to economic
development might well include a joint public-private sector strategy. However, it must be
recognized this partnership will only be effective on the periphery and that the bulk of
economic development will occur as a private sector initiative.
Growth issues are complex and interdependent, and County/City planning in
isolation cannot resolve the challenge of economic development. Moreover, it would
appear not enough merely to pursue "coordination" between the public and private sectors.
Instead, "collaboration" may be the preferred approach.
The GMA foresees economic development as taking place "all within the
capacities of the State's natural resources, public services, and public facilities." Clearly
this language must be interpreted to mean capacities within the total framework of the
community. The County/City economic base is expanded through the process of capitaliz-
ing on existing capabilities and future investment in the community. Whether public
investment induces private investment, or whether the reverse is more likely, need not be
debated. Economic development needs to respect natural resources and occur coincidental
with community infrastructure development.
The siting of economic development is also the result of dynamic market forces.
The probability of economic success in new ventures hopefully would be accompanied by
the least negative impact on the environment and the quality of life in the community. To
this end the "management" aspect of economic development would focus on those external
impacts that the private sector may prefer to ignore. At the same time regional business
competition operates as a check on overly burdensome public sector intervention. The
promotion of economic development opportunities becomes a balancing act between the
flexibility of unrestrained development and the need to protect critical environmental areas
and community lifestyles.
With respect to the Urban/Rural distribution of economic development, the GMA
is ambiguous. A preference to concentrating urban intensity development in urban growth
areas is made clear. But to say that growth outside of urban growth areas can occur "only
if it is not urban in nature" appears as a play on words. Rural areas are encouraged to
"build capacity to accommodate additional economic activity in their communities." The
issue concerning development outside of UGAs concerns matters of scale, type, texture and
timing. While resource conversion activities may be well suited in rural areas, regional
shopping centers may not.
Economic development entails increased public sector investment in infrastruc-
ture. However, since this development generates an increased tax base, the per .capita tax
31
burden as a percent of income need not increase. In theory, economic development can be
self-financing, although it must be recognized that there is often a time lag between when
infrastructure improvements are made and when the tax base is expanded.
32
Policy No. 8•
To draft a policy statement covering rural land uses compatible with the rural
character of such lands.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act pertaining
to the use of rural lands.
SHB 2929, Section 7 (1), requires that each comprehensive plan
include a land use element designating proposed uses of land. This
will include population and building densities as well as providing for
the protection of the quality and quantity of ground water.
SHB 2929, Section 7 (5) requires that the comprehensive plan of each
county include a rural element including lands not designated as urban
or resource lands, and shall permit land uses that are compatible with
the rural character of such lands and provide for a variety of rural
densities.
SHB 2929, Section 64, expresses the intent the legislature to
"encourage economic prosperity and balanced economic growth through-
out the state." In order to accomplish this goal, "growth must be
managed more effectively... and rural areas must build local capacity
to accommodate additional economic activity."
Strategic Issues:
Rural areas account for close to 20% of the land area ~of Jefferson County.
Approximately two-thirds of the population of Jefferson County lives outside the City of
Port Townsend, and at least half of these people live outside of established unincorporated
communities. Migration patterns show that rural areas provide a lifestyle opportunity
attractive to new residents. The rural community is a necessary contributor to the goal of
balanced county-wide economic growth and is reinforced by policies dealing with
Economic Development and pertaining to Affordable Housing. Over time, the area of rural
land may expand as resource lands come to lose their "long-tens commercial significance."
33
Rural areas are affected by three GMA provisions:
• First, as noted under policies designating Urban Growth
Areas, the GMA anticipates the projected county popula-
tion increase of 8,523 residents over the next 20 years
will be accommodated within urban growth areas.
• Secondly, SHB 2929, Section 11 states that growth outside
of UGAs may occur only if it is not urban in nature.
Moreover, it is deemed appropriate that urban growth area
services not be provided outside of UGA so as not to
entice urban growth.
• Thirdly, RSHB 1025, section 21 provides that rural lands
located adjacent to resource lands "shall not interfere" with
the continued use of such resource lands.
These provisions pose a challenge to the development of rural areas consistent
with GMA goals. Clearly the intent is to reverse the trend of urban sprawl and conversion
of rural lands. At the same time nothing prohibits the free movement of population
throughout the county, and indeed the entire population projected to locate in Jefferson
County over the next 20 years may choose to locate in rural areas seeking the particular
quality of life unique to rural areas.
In principle, all lands not designated as urban growth areas, or classified as
resource lands, are identified as rural lands. Within this category there may be further
divisions, such as "rural centers" or "rural communities." Each component of rural areas
has its own characteristics and populace. Critical areas designations constitute an overlay
on all lands in the county including rural areas.
Rural economic development activities are a component to a diversified and
healthy economy. However, when promoting rural development, care must be taken to
avoid providing a stimulus for urban-type growth outside of designated urban growth areas.
Rural development may include tourism, fulfill a recreation need or may include a myriad
of home-based or resource-based industries. Rural areas also may accommodate those
industrial and manufacturing uses that require Large undeveloped parcels of land or uses
that would not be appropriate for location within designated urban growth areas.
34 and 35
Policy No. 9•
To draft a policy statement pertaining to the internal planning policy coordination
and integration, and fiscal impact analysis of comprehensive plans.
Legislative Intent:
Listed below are those key provisions of the Growth Management Act pertaining
to the fiscal impact of comprehensive plans.
SHB 2929, Section 7(3), provides that each comprehensive plan include
a public capital facilities plan which identifies the source of public
funds for such purposes to assure that the facilities plan and the
financial plan are coordinated and consistent.
SHB 2929, Section 7(6), focuses on a transportation element that
implements and is consistent with the land use element of the com-
prehensive plan. A financing component requires an analysis of
funding capability in order to judge needs against probable funding
sources. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a
discussion will be included of how additional funding will be raised or
how land assumptions will be reassessed.
SHB 2929, Section 10, provides that the comprehensive plan of each
county be coordinated with, and consistent with, comprehensive plans
of other counties with which it has common borders or related regional
issues.
SHB 2929, Section 43, provides that in order to promote orderly
growth and development, counties and cities may require that new
growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new
facilities needed to service new growth and development.
SHB 2929, Section 55, requires RTPO's to certify that the transporta-
tion elements of comprehensive plans are consistent with regional
transportation plans, and to develop a regional transportation plan that
is consistent with County and City comprehensive plans.
Strategic Issues:
Fiscal impact analysis is construed as an overlay to the eight designated policy
areas previously discussed. Integral to this analysis is the internal coordination and
36
integration of the policies between and among themselves. Each policy area was designed
to guide development of a segment of county and city comprehensive plans. The eight
policy areas included (Please note policy groupings have been renumbered and reordered):
1. Policies for designating urban growth areas.
2. Policies for the promotion of contiguous and orderly development within
urban growth areas.
3. Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas.
4. Policies for the siting of public capital facilities of a county-wide or state-
wide nature.
5. Policies covering county-wide transportation facilities and strategies.
6. Policies for affordable housing to all economic segments of the population.
7. Policies to encourage county-wide economic development and employment.
8. Policies pertaining to rural land use compatible with the rural character of
such lands.
This policy represents a different frame of inquiry than those previously dis-
cussed. Here the emphasis is on coordination, consistency and integration and the fiscal
implications of the total planning policy framework. Given the configuration of separate
policy thrusts previously discussed, the purpose of this policy is to establish guidance for
reconciling variances and to foster a sense of cohesion or 'synergy' among the various
policies so that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.
Implicit in this notion of 'synergy' is a package of. policies which will provide
an overall planning concept or vision through which the goals of the Growth Management
Act can be achieved. Comprehensive plans become the vehicle for realization of this
concept. Furthermore, as pointed out in the Introduction to• a county-wide policy frame-
work, "managed growth" suggests an action to realize an outcome that would not otherwise
occur.
ON A VISION OF THE FUTURE: Notwithstanding the availability of the
Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey, the Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan, and City and
County comprehensive plans, there exists no composite community "vision" of the future of
Jefferson County. Since each of these documents was designed for a specific purpose,
they contain inherent shortcomings to be considered in City/County planning. The docu-
37
ments do, however, provide a starting point to begin discussing how to develop a 'vision'
of Jefferson County's future.
Jefferson 2000 Survey: The Jefferson 2000 survey primarily targeted a stratified
random sample of households for inquiry. Out of 854 individuals contacted, 700 agreed to
participate. By the cutoff date of October 14, 1991, 517 questionnaires were available for
tabulation. Responses from 500 participants within the control group statistically validated
the survey to a 95% confidence level within a +/- of four and one-half (4 1/2) percentage
points. This is to say that in theory, 95 out of 100 similarly drawn samples would give
the same results within plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. For example, 37% of the
control group favored expanding the roads and streets system. This can be interpreted to
mean, with a 95% confidence level, that if the entire county population had answered this
question their answer would have been between 32.5% and 41.4% in favor of expanding
this service. This level of confidence goes up and down with based on the number of
responses to any particular question. The tabulated control group represents only 61
percent response rate against the initial 854 households contacted. Nothing is known of
how the missing 277 households might have responded.
The Jefferson 2000 Survey also was distributed to every household in the county
through direct mail. Direct mailing achieved a response rate of only 12 percent from the
general public. Because these individuals may have been highly motivated and are self-
selected, they cannot be treated as being truely representative of the general community.
Responses from 992 of the 2,014 general public returns were randomly tabulated and used
as a comparison against the control group.
The Jefferson 2000 survey was designed to give the providers of public services
information concerning a wide range of topics. A second purpose was to discover how the
community felt about a range of quality of life and planning issues. This scan of the
community was later used as an element in the drafting of the Jefferson 2000 Strategic
Plan. As a general proposition, the Jefferson 2000 survey was not designed to provide a
"vision" of the future for Jefferson County, although it does raise a number of questions
and issues that require further exploration as a vision is developed.
Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan: The Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan utilizes the
Jefferson 2000 survey and the views of representatives from 26 taxing districts in its own
statement of "vision";
"Jefferson 2000 envisions the coordination of these taxing districts to
prepare for the future of Jefferson County and to maintain grid enhance
the quality of life for County residents."
38
The plan goes on to set forth the following mission:
" ... to coordinate the operation, function, and funding of participating
service providers to create a balance of the appropriate levels of
services to meet the needs of County residents at acceptable costs."
After a brief discussion of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that
may help or hinder achievement of a desired future, the plan examines a series of 10
related issues. The document then inquires into those strategies that might best address
listed issues.
The strategies were shaped during the course of a year-long planning project
culminating in a final half-day workshop presided over by a facilitating contractor. No
subsequent testing for plan acceptance has been attempted, although some of the strategies
outlined are currently ongoing such as a committee looking into County-wide EMS service,
another researching level of service standards and another developing a target population
for planning purposes. Several of the strategies outlined in the strategic plan address
growth management issues as they pertain to public service providers. One strategy would
establish sessions between agencies "involved in infrastructure planning or general service,
and coordinate capital facilities needs for all districts in conjunction with growth manage-
ment." While the ultimate responsibility for adoption of level of service standards, target
populations, capital improvement plans and the like is the responsibility of the City and
County, the Jefferson 2000 Strategic Plan provides recognition that all of the taxing
districts have a role to play in whatever "vision" is established for the future.
City and County Comprehensive Plans: The existing comprehensive plans of the
City and County contain a "vision" with respect to separate jurisdictions. The two plans
make little reference to how they interact with each other or create an overall "vision."
Both plans have been superseded by the passage of the Growth Management Act and
within the context of GMA will require revision.
In absence of a clear and definitive community "vision," these county-wide
planning policies provide a reference point for the future in the drafting of County and
City comprehensive plans. They will act as a cornerstone from which a "vision" is
developed.
LOCAL AUTONOMY: Section 1 of SHB 2929 established a finding of
legislative intent which reads as follows:
"It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local govern-
ments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another
in comprehensive land use planning."
39
Under this delegation of authority local governments have considerable latitude
for interpreting and implementing the GMA. The strategic issue becomes the extent to
which this local autonomy should be exercised.
Under Section 5 of the GMA, the Department of Community Development was
directed to adopt minimum guidelines for the classification and designation of critical area
lands. This was accomplished through WAC 365-190. However, Section 17 of the Act
states that in making designations of critical areas, counties and cities need only "consider"
the minimum guidelines referenced above. Local governments have the authority to
modify or reject the guidelines as long as the objectives of classification, designation and
protection are met. The test of adequacy is left to the Growth Management Hearings
Boards or the courts. Similarly, the designation of resource lands of long term commercial
significance is locally determined with the same adequacy test.
Local autonomy may be advantageous in resolving apparent conflicts and
ambiguities within the GMA or to tailor provisions of the act to meet local conditions.
For example, Section 11 of SHB 2929 would concentrate growth in urban growth areas,
while section 65 provides that rural areas "must build local capacity to accommodate
additional economic activity." Affordable housing is not defined in the GMA, so again
there is local autonomy to establish definitional criteria and to determine what, if any,
programs would be appropriate for this addressing this issue.
Policy No. 7 dealing with Economic Development makes reference to language
contained in the Governor's Growth Strategies Commission Report. There it is asserted
that the ups and downs of a local economy are market-based; that local governments
operate only in the margins of the marketplace, able to influence only a small portion of
economic activity. However, in that margin local governments are seen to have a mean-
ingful effect, if they focus their investments in such a way as to leverage change.
If this concept of leveraging were accepted as a part of a strategy for achieving
a future vision, then collaboration with the private sector would become a necessary
ingredient in the development and implementation of comprehensive plans. Local govern-
ment participation in the market place becomes a matter of degree.
The county and city should exercise leadership in utilizing the local discretion
provided in the GMA, seizing the opportunity to create a locally "grown" vision for the
future. The legislature recognized that a "one size fits all" strategy will not serve for an
issue as complex as the GMA. Rather, the legislature chose to provide guiding principles
and overall objectives, with the rest left in the hands of local communities.
CONSISTENCY AND COORDINATION: The GMA is replete within
language calling for consistency within, between, and among planning policies and com-
prehensive plans.
40
Consistency within a given development policy area, such as for designating
UGAs or the siting of capital facilities can be managed easily. However, consistency
among the eight separate policies components constituting an overall planning framework
represents a more difficult assignment.
A particular challenge, for example, is integration of interim regulations covering
classification and designation of resource lands and critical areas into the development of
comprehensive plans. Do interim regulations shape the plan or does the plan reshape the
regulations? Under the GMA these regulations are recognized as a first interim step in the
growth management process. The intent is to conserve and protect designated lands while
comprehensive plans are being developed. The spill over effects of how these interim
regulations will shape the plans cannot easily be determined. The policy issue becomes
one of balance and priority. How this balance presents itself will depend on how well all
points of view are represented during the development of the comprehensive plan.
In many instances, the search for consistency will best be resolved through
flexibility and the subtlety of language. For instance, the UGA planning policy is to
"encourage" a shift in growth patterns from non-urban areas to UGAs. At the same time,
in dealing with rural areas planning policy would "promote the unique. character" of rural
areas. With respect to economic development, the planning policy calls for "matching the
scale" of economic activities outside of UGAs with the resource "capabilities" of rural
areas. Testing for consistency between the county comprehensive plan, the city com-
prehensive plan and those of neighboring jurisdictions, as in the case of highways, transit,
and utility corridors, will best be achieved through either formal or informal coordination.
The need for flexibility in county-wide planning policies and subsequent comprehensive
plans is necessary in order that a balance of interest can be achieved.
SYNERGY: The smooth functioning of modern society depends on a willing-
ness of many interdependent components to work together. Synergy is the concept that the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In total, these policies create a framework for a
preferred outcome. In application, the principles will require community debate, modifica-
tion and prioritizing in the development of the comprehensive plans. It is through this
collaborative process that consensus around a common collective vision can be reached,
creating a representative statement of the future.
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: In a composite sense, a fiscal impact analysis
is the "acid test" to determine whether desired ends are matched by supporting inputs; in
other words, within our means can we achieve the goals set forth?. The question becomes,
is a given comprehensive plan financially viable and in what time frame? Plan fiscal
feasibility encompasses both capital costs and operating costs. Within a discrete service
area, such as ground transportation, a comprehensive plan element may be financially
feasible, but in the aggregate may be defective. That is, the fiscal impact analysis may
reveal that several sectors are relying on the same, limited resource base. Accordingly,
41
fiscal impact analysis represents a discipline which must accompany the entire planning
process.
Assuming that plan aspirations exceed resource availabilities, the stage is set for
a revisiting of initial planning assumptions, prioritizing plan elements and developing non-
financial means to achieve the same end. The planning process is iterative, not linear.
Internal consistency will be accomplished through successive revisions and evaluations.
The comprehensive planning process must, in order to insure overall feasibility and
integrity of the planning effort, make provision for fiscal impact analysis throughout the
planning process.
42