Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-434 For the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting ZlJ i) h z,q~l @~ GfYtA Speech Provided by James A. Jackson, PO Box 1405, Port HadJock, W A 98339-1405. Text of Speech below: I would like to first extend an apology to Ashley Bullitt for my inappropriate line of questioning during the February 4th planning commission public comment period. I take responsibility for my actions and I apologize once again. J would like to make separate comments regarding the Tri-Area Urban Growth Area and the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Update. Each comment will incorporate a discussion of and impacts on affordable housing which is one of the 14 goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The issue of affordable housing could be considered a "crisis" as reflected in discussions in the local newspapers and comments made by our elected county leaders. As you know, only 1 - 2% of the total area of land within Jefferson County could potentially be used for any type of development as the remainder of land is currently off-limits due to designations of natural resource lands owned by Federal, State, Local, and Private interests. Since so little land is actually available for housing (whether designated affordable or not), local government and its agencies should ensure their regulations are not complicated nor costly to comply with to minimize the costs of appropriate development (including affordable housing) while still protecting our natural resources including wildlife habitats. In regards to the UGA issue, Ashley Bullitt made a very good suggestion on February 4th when she asked Joel Peterson of the Department of Community Development (DCD) why they were restricting further residential development in commercial-zoned areas under the proposed UGA? This is a valid point. Her comments reflect her statement as quoted in the March 20, 2007 edition of the Peninsula Daily News upon her appointment to the Planning Commission. She was quoted as saying "You can't serve the public well if you are inflexible." DeD, the planning commission, and the Board of County Commissioners (l3OCC) must ensure maximum flexibility in the proposed UGA to allow mixed-use development. This would ensure small businesses could be started that would add more jobs to Jefferson County while potentially adding more affordable housing either as apartments for renters or as units for owners of real property. This would also meet several goal requirements of the GMA including: 1. Focus urban growth in urban areas. 2. Reduce sprawl. 3. Encourage affordable housing. 4. Encourage sustainable economic development. 5. Protect property rights. 6. Protect the environment. In regards to the SMP Update issue, I would ask the Planning Commission to evaluate the following items: 1. Has the current Shoreline Management Plan harmed shorelines? In what specific ways does it not currently comply with the State Shorelines Management Act implementation requirements? Has a non-biased analysis of the proposal been done to detennine if the draft as written by the Department of Ecology pursuant to its requirements for funding the project by $600K - $700K results in an over-step of the regulatory functions of the Department of Ecology? 2. Although the total amount of property taxes to be collected from the residents by the Jefferson County Assessor will not be affected by any regulatory changes, the proposed SMP Update will have significant impacts 011 whom the property taxes are levied with a shift of the taxes from some to others. Have these impacts been thoroughly studied? 3. Has the concept that property owners are typically the ones who will and do protect their land better than anyone else been acknowledged? Typical property owners do not pollute their own backyards. For the few property owners who may cause pollution issues or harm to critical areas, there are current laws and regulations in place to address these violations. 4. Has the impact on the budgets and staffmg levels of Jefferson County been evaluated if the proposed SMP Update is passed as currently drafted? This more complicated SMP Update will require more government employees to monitor these new provisions. The County even in good economic times has a very difficult time employing competent staff to timely handle their current responsibilities. In these tough economic times, it will be an impossibility of local government to take on more oversight functions. 5. Has the restrictions on property been evaluated to determine its effects on affordable housing? As noted earlier, Jefferson County has a very limited supply of land upon which any development can occur. Further limitations and restrictions will further drive up the costs of land and the associated costs for building homes with a very negative impact on affordable housing. It is my opinion that both the proposed UGA and the SMP Update are too complicated and inflexible and do not properly reflect the needs of Jefferson County nor the requirements of the GMA. I recommend the planning commission review the state requirements of any SMP Update and the requirements for creating a UGA to ensure the Department of Ecology and DCD have created proposals that are unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible; thereby running afoul of other state laws (like the GMA) and not truly reflective of the needs of Jefferson County residents (including the wildlife). At the next planning commission, I plan to review with you the responsibilities and duties of the planning commission as noted in Jefferson County Resolution No. 54-97. I also plan to review with you the goals and policies of the GMA that you are required to fully understand and comply with in exercising your responsibilities and duties. Thank you very much. James A. Jackson PO Box 1405 Port Hadlock W A 98339-1405 Email: jimjacks66@hotmail.com