Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102207 District No. 1 CommiuloDer: Pbil Jolt... DIstrIct No.1 CCMltll'liuloaer: David W. S.... District No. 3 CO......ioDer: JollD AIIIda County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of October 22, 2007 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners David Sullivan and John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: how much government can the City and County afford with no underlying economy?; what the City does is germane to the County's business; we're looking at the worst financial disruption since the 1930's and the County is in the worst position to deal with it; this County needs jobs; employees that work for businesses in the County have to live in adjacent counties because they can't afford to live here; Jefferson County needs to reach out to small business owners so they are not afraid; the County needs a business license so that we can tell what is going on here; the Planning Commission Chair and the Director ofDCD have stated that they aren't going to consider'the Swinomish Decision until a later time; the Planning Commission members are not competent to understand what they need to do; some advisory committees do not provide minutes of their meetings and the public has no way of knowing what they are doing; a request was made that all appointed committees keep minutes of their meetings and post them on the website; the Open Meetings Act requires that any committee that works for the County is subject to the Act which means their regular meetings must be set; and the occupancy of the Superior Courtroom was upgraded from 90 to 173 last Monday; there are people coming into the County only to make money on real estate; and a thank you was given to the Board and the PUD for the water system in Quilcene. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT NO. 0763-28759 re: Cover All Children Medicaid Outreach; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services 2. AGREEMENT re: Nurse Family Partnership Home Visits; Jefferson County Public Health; Jefferson County Community Network 3. AGREEMENT NO. G0800114 re: Beckett Point Large On-Site Sewage System (LOSS) Project; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2007 4. AGREEMENT NO. G0800082 re: Discovery Bay Local Government Stormwater; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 5. AGREEMENT, Amendment re: Training Services, Attachment A Schedule of Classes; Peninsula College 6. AGREEMENT, Supplemental re: Courthouse Clocktower Rehabilitation Project No. 3031547; Jefferson County Public Works; Architectural Resources Group 7. AGREEMENT NO. 06-1692D re: H.J. Carroll Park Third Field Grant Project; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Recreation and Conservation Board (RCO) 8. AGREEMENT re: Waste Management Facility Vegetation Mowing; Jefferson County Public Works; Tractor Shed, Jim Storey 9. AGREEMENT NO. G0600343, Amendment No.2 re: Comprehensive Shoreline Master Program Update; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Washington State Department of Ecology 10. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated October 15,2007 Totaling $547,532.51 and Dated October 16,2007 Totaling $4,279.02 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with vouchers approved and signed by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners are retained by the Jefferson County Auditor and Public Works Department.) 11. Payment of Jefferson County AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated October 16, 2007 Totaling $7,815.23 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with AlP Warrants approved by the Payroll Services Manager are retained in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office.) 12. Letter of Support for Environmentally Sound Mining Practices on Federal Lands; Senator Maria Cantwell; Senator Patty Murray; and Representative Norm Dicks 13. Advisory Board Appointments (3); Jefferson County Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN); Three Year Terms Expiring November 8, 2010; 1) Martha Anthony; 2) Helen Morrison; and 3) Suzanne Schmidt 14. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN); Judy Tough COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Board members discussed issues that they feel should be part of the legislative strategies for the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC). Commissioner Austin suggested: 1) Tim Shelton's proposed bill; 2) a utility tax, and 3) a mineral extraction tax. Commissioner Sullivan added the issue of unfunded mandates. County Administrator John Fischbach stated that the utility tax is a tax that Washington cities have had for a number of years. The utility tax is why cities are better able to finance their programs than counties. Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan mentioned their concerns about implementing a utility tax. This County needs a substantial revenue source now. The per parcel fee was then discussed along with ways to make this tax more equitable for all property owners. Chairman Johnson suggested that the issue of State funding for LEOFF I retiree medical expenses also be brought to the WSAC meeting. Commissioner Sullivan said that affordable housing and senior citizen programs are also going to need more funding in the future. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2007 County Administrator John Fischbach noted that the big issue for the 2008 budget is whether to use banked capacity to help balance the budget or to save it for future programs such as the Tri Area sewer. * County Administrator's Briefing: John Fischbach reported on the following: The McInnes Road item was to be on the agenda, but the Public Works Department talked with all parties involved and the Salmon Enhancement group said they can't do the project until next spring so it has been put on hold. Comprehensive Plan Amendment review meetings need to be scheduled and will require a larger venue than the Commissioners Chambers. If these meetings are held on Monday they would have to start after 5 p.m. Special meetings could be set up for Wednesdays during the day. The Board members concurred that the 5 p.m. on Mondays will work best for them. The tentative schedule for these meetings is November 11, 19 and 26 and December 3 and 10,2007. Fulton House - a hearing is set to surplus a house on this property that was acquired because it is in the flood plain. The house needs to be relocated. The Housing Authority has been contacted to see if they would like to use the house for affordable housing. The RCW allows the County to donate surplus property to another governmental entity. The Sewer updated was handed out with a listing of projects that have applied for State grant funding. The list shows requests for a total of $17 million out of $5 million available. Animal Identification System - a draft Snohomish County resolution in opposition to this program was submitted to the Board with a request that Jefferson County oppose it also. This is a USDA program to identify the chain of custody for beef cattle. The Board members concurred that more information is needed before they are willing to consider taking any action on this request. Sheila Murray called to say that the Navy will be hosting some form of open house where people can get an update on the Navy's projects on Indian Island. The meeting with the Quinault Indian Nation and the Grays Harbor County Commissioners is scheduled at 1 p.m. on November 28,2007 in the Grays Harbor County Commissioner's Chambers. Commissioner Austin reported that there are some old structures on the north side of the Quinault Indian Nation property that the Historical Society may be interested in. The meeting with the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is scheduled for December 1,2007. A rough wor~ing document was reviewed on the 2008 budget which shows that as of this morning the 2008 budget is out of balance by approximately $1 million. The County Administrator's Briefing at 1 :30 p.m. is cancelled. * * * * * * * * * HEARING re: Supplemental Budget Appropriations/Extensions for Various County Funds: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Central Services Director Allen Sartin explained that this hearing was advertised in the newspaper on the October 10 and 17, 2007. Chairman Johnson asked if the clock tower project is closed? Allen Sartin explained that it should be closed out by the end of the year. They are still working on the bell because there is a vibration that creates a noise that is heard in the offices adjacent to and below the bell tower. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2007 The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the supplemental budget appropriations/extensions, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 92 -07 ordering the budget appropriation/extensions as requested by departments for their various funds (Commissioners, Planning Commission, District Court, Superior Court, Operating Transfers Out, WSU Extension, Economic Development, JeffCorn, Hotel/Motel, Health Site Abatement, Public Health, Water Quality, Community Development, Clock Tower, and Public Infrastructure.) Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Interim Ordinance No. 07-0910-07 Rescinding Chapter 18.18 Within Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code and Formally Re-establishing the Previously Existing Rural Designations and Standards for the Planning Area for the Future Irondale and Hadlock Urban Growth Area: Commissioner Johnson opened the public hearing. Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development, explained that this is the third interim control re-establishing previously existing rural designations and standards for the planning area ofthe future Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. The interim controls are good for six months and require a public hearing within sixty days of their enactment. The Department is continuing to work on the Tri Area sewer project and complying with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board order. Chairman Johnson asked if there are a certain number of times an interim ordinance can be renewed? Joel Peterson answered that there isn't a specific number, but the County must be working on the issues. The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. Malcom Harris, representing Brian Sakuma who owns property at the intersection of Highway 19 and Irondale Road, stated that this is an existing mini-storage facility with a home on the property, another commercial building and a large open vehicle storage on the west side ofthe property. They are objecting to the continuation of one portion of the ordinance and request an amendment to the restriction contained in Section 4. This section carves out a restriction against the further expansion or development of a mini- storage operation. When Mr. Sakuma submitted his pre-application hearing request earlier this year he was told that this section would preclude him from expanding his existing use. They believe the impact from the expansion of his mini-storage facility would be minimal. It is an expansion of an existing use. They understand that the purpose ofthe ordinance is to foster the development of sewage facilities in the area. The stated reason for denying the mini-storage in this area is that there is a belief among DCD staffthat a mini-storage is somehow incompatible with the development of sewers. He doesn't believe that there is any rationale to support that belief. Mr. Sakuma is willing to sign a no protest agreement or an LID petition or whatever vehicle the County will develop to initiate sewer development in that area. He is willing to agree to that now because he wants sewer service to his property. He's hoping that this intersection will become a commercial center. This is an opportunity for a win/win situation by getting this development on board with the development of a sewer in this area. Section 4 of the ordinance could simply be eliminated because of the wording in Section 5 which applies to all properties. Section 4 is redundant. The mini storage is an Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22, 2007 appropriate use for this property in this area. Mini-storage units are a necessary feature of urban living. There is a demand for this type of business in Jefferson County. The property may eventually become more intensely used in the future especially if a sewer goes in there. Joe D' Amico, stated that he has not read the ordinance, but he cautioned the County that it is important to know what is out there in the way of businesses in the County. Legal non-conforming uses have the right to continue, expand and intensify. Mike Belenski, commented on the time allowed for speakers at the public hearing and the way correspondence is listed on the meeting agenda. He said that he wants to make sure that the public is aware that Commissioner Sullivan has been in conference with Mr. Harris who just made comments on this ordinance, and the person he represents. Hearing no further comments for or against the interim ordinance, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that a mini-storage business is not a "people intensive use." The goals for doing sewers in the Tri Area include: affordable housing, sales tax potential, job creation and those kinds of intensive use of the land. Section 4 might be more clear in that regard and next time this is redone, the Board may want to consider some changes in the ordinance. He appreciates the comments that a mini- storage may be needed in a UGA and in other areas too. As the Board looks at development regulations in the future the proper place for mini-storage units as well as other types of businesses can be considered. He explained that he did meet with Brian Sakuma, Malcom Harris and Richard Berg about this because Mr. Sakuma is one of his constituents. He is willing to meet with any business owner in the Tri Area. Doing something temporarily is problematic because there is no mechanism within the County to allow a use for a specific period oftime. A mini-storage unit doesn't meet the goals for the Tri Area UGA. Chairman Johnson stated that he would like the opportunity to talk this over with Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez. Commissioner Austin stated that he doesn't feel as concerned about what seems to be a simple expansion into an area that doesn't appear to be in use right now which would increase the tax base to some extent. Mr. Harris mentioned the willingness of Mr. Sakuma to sign a no protest agreement and asked if that agreement would be transferable to a future owner? County Administrator John Fischbach reported that a no protest agreement would be transferable. Commissioner Austin stated that he is in favor of allowing this expansion for a number of reasons: 1) there is already a mini-storage facility on the property, and 2) it would be a more intense use of the property. Ifthe ordinance was changed to allow this expansion he would like to hear the reaction of the neighbors on 1 Oth Avenue. County Administrator John Fischbach summarized that he heard the Board say 1) there is no action to be taken today and 2) that the Board members are open to consider an extension of the temporary use in some form. He will work with DCD and report back to the Board on this. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 22,2007 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 a.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. cY OMV-~~ Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk ofthe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Da~~ (1-.(\ '" ~ Page 6 HARRIS, MERICLE & WAKAYAMA A Professional Limited Liability Company ATTORNEYS AT LAW MALCOLM S. HARRIS E-mail: mharris@hmwlaw.com 999 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3210 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 FAX (206) 624-8560 (206) 621-1818 r;'::::;~\ ,: ",',w.' Ii) October 17, 2007-1 d Port Townsend Office 213 TAYLOR STREET PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 FAX (360) 379-9378 ("'""\\ r= " n " ,-, r::-~) 379-9377 ;: ...', i' ~. i" i' ,1 I f i ), :i \ r!( \. ~ ...<\..., i iUt..:/ Commissioner Phil Johnson Commissioner David Sullivan Commissioner John Austin DCD Director Al Scalf P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Public Comments on Interim Ordinance No. #07-0910-07 set for Public Hearing October 22, 2007 Dear Commissioners and Mr. Scalf: We represent Mr. Bryan Sakuma and are writing to comment on Interim Ordinance #07-0910-07, adopted on September 10, 2007, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 of the Growth Management Act. Mr. Sakuma owns land near the intersection of Rhody Drive and Irondale Road. The property has been a storage facility for many years. The eastern part contains a home, an office building and four mini-storage buildings. The western part of the property is used for outdoor storage of vehicles. Last April, Mr. Sakuma submitted an application for a pre-application conference with DCD to discuss his plan to add four additional mini- storage buildings in the northeast corner of the property, and was told that approval would be unlikely due to the moratorium, despite the fact that he is simply asking to expand an existing use. (Please see attached site plan.) Mr. Sakuma's proposal includes additional facilities in the back corner of the property, where there will be no visual impact and where commercial development is not particularly viable. The other half of the property would be left open for future urban development, should the UGA sewer planning and other issues be successfully resolved. The title of the Interim Ordinance states that it is intended to re-establish the previously existing rural designations and standards for the planning area for the future Irondale/Hadlock urban growth area. The "Whereas" clauses explain the need to respond to the Western Washington Hearing Board's Finding of Invalidity by reverting to the rural designations and standards that were in effect prior to August 23, 2004. They also state the concern that allowing development that will not fund a sewer system within the future October 17, 2007 Page 2 UGA will preclude urban uses and intensities. This latter concern was also expressed in discussions with County staff-Le., that the County adopted this interim regulation because it believes that owners of mini-storage facilities will not support the development of a sewer system within the proposed UGA. Section 4 of the regulations states that: "Mini-storage facilities shall not be allowed in the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center ("RVC") and the rural commercial areas designated at the intersection of Irondale and State Route ("SR") 19 and the intersection of Ness's Corner Road and SR 19, in order to prevent land uses in those rural commercial areas which are inconsistent with the goal of developing urban sewer service for the future UGA." It expressly acknowledges that they may be allowed in other similarly-designated rural commercial areas in the county. It is this "moratorium" that concerns Mr. Sakuma. Based on its response to Mr. Sakuma's submittal, it appears that the planning department believes that the moratorium is intended to prohibit expansion of existing facilities on land already owned by a developer, as well as new facilities on vacant land. To our knowledge, the other mini-storage facilities in the proposed UGA area have likely maximized their available area. Regardless, particularly to the extent it is interpreted to cover expansion of an existing use, we see several problems with the prohibition. First issue: Lack of Rationale for the Moratorium. RCW 36.70A.390 provides: A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewaL ~ October 17, 2007 Page 3 We understand that moratoriums and interim zoning are generally recognized techniques designed to preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. Richard L. Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice/ S 2.13, at 72 (ed. 1983). We also understand that the Interim Ordinance is a response to the finding of invalidity by the WWGHMB. We have no quarrel with the need to re-establish previously existing rural designations for development, as indicated by the title of the Ordinance. However, we question what prohibiting mini-storage facilities has to do with the explanation for the interim regulations (that" allowing development inside the UGA that will not fund the sewer system will preclude urban uses and intensities at those locations.") Mr. Sakuma has expressly offered to sign a no-protest agreement as is required by Section 5 of the Ordinance. Therefore, this rationale does not support the moratorium on mini-storage facilities; in fact, the opposite is true. Moreover, mini-storage facilities are often also located in urban areas or at least are not considered incompatible with urban uses. This leaves no rationale whatsoever for prohibiting mini-storage facilities, particularly expansion on an existing parcel. The desire to prohibit development that will not support a future sewer system is a non-issue. The County is sending mixed signals, unfairly, to a particular property owner. Second issue-The Ongoing Timeframe for an "Interim" Moratorium. In Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties v. City of Sammamish, 2005 WL 2227925 (Wash. Central Puget St. GMHB, August 4, 2005), the petitioners challenged the twelfth in a series of six-month moratoriums that continued for six years, on applications for development approvals and permits in the City of Sammamish. First adopted in 1999 (ostensibly to give the new City time to hire staff and adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations), the CP and development regulations were adopted in 2003, but the City continued to extend the moratorium every six months. The Central Board found that the moratorium was no longer an interim control under RCW 36.70A.390, but a development regulation that needed to be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, comply with SEP A, and consider and be guided by the goals of GMA. The Board noted that .390 does not indicate how many extensions it takes for a moratorium to become a permanent regulation, but found that under these circumstances it had become a permanent fixture in Sammamish in violation of RCW 36.70A.390. Here, the County first adopted the "interim" ordinance as Ordinance No. 05-0410- 06, on April 10, 2006. Ordinance No. 11-1120-06 followed on November 20, 2006. Ordinance No. 01-0312-07 was adopted on March 12, 2007, and then Ordinance No. 07-t0910-07 on September 7, 2007. None of these interim ordinances state that they will expire October 17, 2007 Page 4 in six months, or be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period, as referenced in the statute. They are all the same wording, without any indication of the progress, if any, made by the County to justify a continued interim ordinance, making it difficult for a property owner to discern when or if the moratorium has an end in sight. As you know, the proposed UGA has a long and complex history. The latest Hearings Board decision, the Order Finding Continuing Noncompliance and Granting Additional Time, dated Apri19, 2007, granted the County a I-year extension to complete sewer facilities planning and to adopt reduced boundaries for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA to reflect areas where sewers will be in place by 2024, and a 2-year extension to adopt appropriate development regulations for the lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA. This extends the timeframe out to at least June 2, 2009 to achieve compliance, which is understandable given the complexity of the sewer planning issues. However, from our perspective this "interim" moratorium, interpreted to prohibit even expansion of an existing use, will be in effect for over 3 years if it is renewed repeatedly. If history is any indication, it will likely be additional years if County extension requests are granted and/or the Petitioners appeal. Under these circumstances, the moratorium has become a development regulation in a "planning area" for a UGA that may not exist for years, if ever. This delay is understandable to the extent it is preserving the status quo-Le., the pre-existing rural designations and standards for the planning area for the future UGA. However, to the extent that the interim ordinance specifically announces a mini-storage moratorium, allowed as a conditional or permitted use by the very regulations "reverted to," it is a new development regulation that needs to implement the comprehensive plan and be adopted through the appropriate public participation process of the GMA. Third issue: The Validity of a Specific Use Moratorium in a "Planning Area" The County represented to the Board that "the UGA boundaries are not final" and "that rural development regulations in effect prior to the passage of the subject Ordinance are, once again, the operating regulations." (Order Granting Reconsideration, July 29, 2005, page 2.). In Ordinance No. 02-0126-06, Section 2, and the disclaimer on the top of Chapter 18.18, the County reiterated that until such time as there is a final adjudication by the WWGHMH which finds Ch. 18.18 to be compliant with the GMA, "rural standards shall control and regulate the development of, permitting process for or other land use decisions for proposal that would occur, if approved or allowed, upon real property within the boundaries of the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area." (Compliance Order, May 30, 2006, pages 8-9.) The WWGMHB ruled that the Determination of In validity could not be rescinded until the County, by ordinance or resolution, made it clear what rural standards will apply October 17, 2007 Page 5 and to what rural designations they will apply. (Order Denying Motion to Rescind Invalidity and Motion to Impose Invalidity Determination, March 8, 2006, page 9.) The Board also concluded that the "boundaries of the Irondale and Port Hadlock UCA continue to be non-compliant with RCW 36.70A.ll0 because they include areas for which no public sewer service is planned within the 20-year planning horizon." (Compliance Order, May 30,2006, page 15, page 33, No. 10). The Board has also imposed invalidity as to the zoning map for the UCA. (Compliance Order, page 24). Essentially, it appears to us that there no valid future land use map or zoning map for the UCA will be in existence until the County has accomplished its sewer planning and adopted development regulations and comprehensive plan designations in accordance with that planning. Nonetheless, the County has attempted to regulate one use-self-storage units- only within the rural commercial areas found within the planning area for the Irondale and Hadlock UCA. For the Rural Commercial, NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroad Zoning District, the amended Title 18 merely has an asterisk stating: "Chimacum-Four Corners, Existing Only." However, the parameter of this zone and designation are not clear to us, nor is the authority for the using Port Hadlock and Irondale as a zoning designation based on a future UCA sewer planning area. This is a specific restriction unrelated to a particular zone in Chapter 18.18, but instead carves out one area for mini-storage prohibition. The term "existing only" does not necessarily preclude reasonable expansion, yet another indication of the lack of clarity in this entire approach to this issue. Please be aware that procedurally, we believe that the Crowth Management Hearings Board likely has jurisdiction over this issue because the moratorium could be considered a development regulation In Austin v. San Tuan County, 2001 WL 933665, the Western Board specifically reviewed an interim ordinance adopted by San Juan County, holding: The ordinance was adopted under RCW 37.70A.390. That section of the CMA provides that a county that adopts" a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control" without a public hearing must hold a public hearing within sixty days and enter findings of fact justifying the action either before, or immediately after, the public hearing. RCW 36.70A.030(7) defines a DR as: "The controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances and binding sit plan ordinances and any amendments thereto.". . . October 17, 2007 Page 6 The language of RCW 36.70A.390 that allows adoption of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or official control falls squarely within the definition of a development regulation in the Act. Therefore, we are keenly aware of the need to challenge the Interim Ordinance before the Hearings Board if we must. However, we are hopeful that a minor amendment will resolve the issue. As discussed, the authority for the mini-storage prohibition in the proposed UGA area seems quite problematic to us. We propose that the County either delete Section 4 from the Interim Ordinance, or at the very least amend it as follows: "The restriction in this paragraph 4 shall not prevent reasonable expansion of storage facilities on properties which are substantially devoted to mini-storage or other storage use." Another option would be to make an interpretation that the moratorium does not apply to the expansion of an existing permitted used, provided the property owner signs a no protest agreement for future urban sewer service as part of the approval process. We would even consider a limitation on the area for the additional units to preserve the frontage portion of the property for future urban level development. We are open to other suggestions, but we do believe that the "Interim" Ordinance places Mr. Sakuma in an untenable situation and would be unlikely to withstand challenge. We look forward to working with the Commissioners and County staff to resolve this matter. Yours very truly, HARRIS, MERICLE & WAKAYAMA , //II/~ Malcolm Harris Mary A. Winters cc: David Alvarez, Civil Prosecuting Attorney Joel Peterson, Long-Range Planner Mr. Bryan Sakuma, Client Mr. Richard Berg, Architect r ~~ ~~ I ~ ~ '!i~ ~ ~i (li~ ~ l'!Ui ~~ ~~ ~ii (li.- i~ (li. I:) ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ Q~ \)>Ul 1->.... ~g """" ~ \)> '" .S> rn i" ."X ~~ UI 3:z ~~ ~tJ Q~ ',J ~~ --- II ~ I~ iji'il 152'-0. ~~~ "1'-5 qO'-O. 2b'-IO' r-..... "..... ,..... I......... I........ I....... I ? I ,. I l I I f I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I { I I ,/ I /f /' 1,/ {// / / I / / I / / / l"'-I~ " I,' " irJ,' i,' /'"N /,::.- 1/ ,/,g. r' II,~ / / /:1 I I I 'I / I {;r f / / / / /- / /<6Z/ : I f I f I I I~" I I 'f ( I I I I I r I { I I I f I ' I I I I I I I I -i~ / / / l/ / / ,/ frDU: h "'/1~ "'/1 "/1 ",j j ii ~ i-n_n_-_n -[;;~:!l!1~"~:~:f~f=::j!::II:i:lf lr~; ~ ~ ~ 3 o ~ i" II ~ nu ~~~~ !~I'i I~U B SITE FVH FOR: BRYAN SAKUMA SITE PLAN ID RIC.HAROBERG ARC.HITEC.rs, P.c., 1l'l TA,'rLClR fflet 1"C1RT'RIHmO,", .... 1il6O}~,,-~ Id Mid ....,.."'....._ _"""""DR PORT HADL.OGK. Ii'r. C\&33&1 JJ.e~ ..ju~~~ lJJ~ AI~ oc"~j 1, c~ I olJd./ 61 " 1):::1) . Signing No-Protest. As required by Section 5 of the interim ordinance, the signing of a no-protest agreement solves the concern raised in the "whereas", which is that if they allow development inside the proposed UGA that will not fund the sewer system, it will preclude urban uses and intensities at those locations. Our client is willing to sign the agreement if allowed to expand. The Section 4 states that the moratorium is to prevent land uses which "by their nature" are inconsistent with the goal of developing urban services for the future UGA. Why? Doesn't Section 5 solve that problem? Disconnect between problem and regulation. No evidence or whereas shows how the "character of the use", as D. Alvarez puts it, is inconsistent with developing urban sewer servIce. iOt:);2/D7 ~ " '; i ,'If ~?t:io I ,- , i · County should be thrilled to have major property owner be willing to sign a no- protest-goes a long way toward preventing a protest of the future formation of an LID for sewer service, and getting the very sewer service that the County is required to have for the UGA. . Compatibility: Although not stated in the Interim Ordinance, staff has suggested that a policy decision has been made that mini-storage facilities are inconsistent with future urban development. Why? Mini-storage facilities are often found in urban, as well as rural areas. . Unfairness. The County is proposing to revert to the prior rural land use designations except that it has singled out ONE USE for a moratorium, which will last at least 3 years, if not more. The rationale for signaling out this one use, as discussed, is faulty. The long time frame makes the "interim" moratorium a development regulation, which needs to be adopted after the full public process, SEP A, and be consistent with the GMA. County cannot use the allowance of an "interim" regulation in this manner. · Confusion as to Area Covered. The Interim Ordinance returns the UGA planning area to rural commercial zoning. The Ordinances references the Rural Village Center, which is in red on the attached map, and then 2 locations: the intersection oflrondale Rd and SR 19, and then the intersection of Ness' Comer and SR-19, which are in blue on the map. However, to 2 intersections do not appear to cover the entire blue section, entitled "General Crossroads." Therefore, only a portion of the blue is regulated, even though the zoning map for the UGA was invalidated and the UGA boundaries on which this area is based are not final or adopted. · Moreover, the Use Table itself PERMITs mini-storage facilities in the General Crossroads zone. The Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad is the column which states "C/Yes" with a footnote 3 "Chimacum-Four Comers, Existing Only." This only leads to further confusion as to the area that the moratorium applies to. A property owner should be clear as to what regulations apply to his or her property from reading the UDC.