Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout019 2025-05-15_report FS memo for Jefferson County_May 15, 2025MEMORANDUM From: Future Scenarios Project Team: Elizabeth McManus, Martha Madrid, Shelby Thomas To: Jefferson County Long-range Planning Team: Donna Frostholm, George Terry, Joel Peterson, Mo-chi Lindblad CC: PSP: Juliana Tadano, Laura Rivas, Peter Ravella, Scott Redman Date: May 15, 2025 RE: Key decisions to advance Future Scenarios x Jefferson County comprehensive planning work PURPOSE This memo describes two dependent conversations (one will likely inform the other) and key questions that will advance the Jefferson County-related Future Scenarios (FS) work. It includes two considerations and proposes two product options for the Long-range Planning Team (Planning Team). CONVERSATIONS AND KEY QUESTIONS Concrete product and purpose. We’ve discussed creating Jefferson County-specific narratives based on the existing future scenario narratives for Puget Sound, and the idea these Jefferson County-specific narratives might be a good communication tool to accompany the 2025 Comprehensive Plan (comp plan), but we haven’t articulated exactly how the narratives (or product) will be packaged and at what point the County might use them in its planning process/comp plan roll out. Questions for Planning Team • How do you envision using this product as a communication tool? Who is the intended audience and what would you like them to understand, think about, or offer in response? • At what point in the comp plan process might it be used? • Do either of the product options (A, B, described below) seem like the right approach, given your responses to the questions above and the considerations described below? Understanding Jefferson County. The questions below are meant to illustrate the kinds of things the FS Project Team hopes to learn to think more deeply about possible narratives. Questions for Planning Team • Drivers of change: What are the biggest influences on whether the county can achieve its vision and framework goals? • Rural character: How might resident perspectives of “rural character” evolve over time (beyond the GMA definition)? For example, do Jefferson County residents feel that 5:1 rural residential zoning maintains rural character? • Zoning: How do you imagine the process of upzoning, i.e., how will the county’s zoning map evolve over time? How “full” are the current areas? For example, are the low- density residential areas in the Hadlock/Irondale UGA maxed out or do they have a lot of space to fill in? • Environmental protection: What does protecting the environment and mitigating/adapting to climate change look like beyond working lands conservation, open space protection, and stormwater/wastewater management? E.g., decarbonization and electrification? Rolling back development to respond to SLR? CONSIDERATIONS After reviewing the draft Jefferson County comprehensive plan and other information sent, the FS Project Team notes two things to keep in mind when thinking of how a concrete product will be developed and used: • There are some important differences between Jefferson County 2025 Comprehensive Plan and some key assumptions used to create the existing future scenario narratives. These include: o Different planning horizons (2050 vs 2080) o Different population growth assumptions (moderate OFM projections in the comp plan vs high in FS) o Different UGA expansion assumptions (UGA area expansion and increase in number is anticipated in the comp plan vs no UGA area expansion or increases in FS) o Different consideration of incorporated vs unincorporated areas (FS generally treats lands within UGAs as urban (more specifically, as land that can accommodate urban zoning) and outside UGAs as rural, regardless of its incorporated/unincorporated status) • The final product will reflect the Planning Team’s understanding of the county’s interests and desires; there will be little to no public involvement in the product development PROPOSED PRODUCT OPTIONS Both products proposed below are flexible and strike the FS Project Team as potential “jumping off” points for post-comp plan work; they would be a good way to elicit public participation when implementing the comp plan – knowing there’s more than one way to do so! A. Short narratives that explore how Jefferson County’s future could unfold. a. What it is: A set of two or three 55-year stories that illustrate different ways Jefferson County might realize its Framework Goals. Each story will start in 2025 with the adoption of the comp plan and end in 2080 with the Framework Goals realized, but they will present alternate realities. The narrator would be the same across the stories: A ten-year old child of seasonal farmworkers who attends Chimacum public schools and lives in Chimacum Commons who eventually becomes a county planner and retires in 2080. b. How it’s delivered: Word document or Story Map. c. What FS needs from Planning Team: Two to three in-depth conversations about Jefferson County in May/first week of June and two narrative review periods the weeks of 6/9 and 6/23, plus images or other media if a Story Map is desired. B. Report on Future Scenarios connections and applications to Jefferson County. a. What it is: A short report that describes current FS insights on the region’s non-PSRC planning counties, Jefferson County, and WRIAs 16 and 17. These insights could be applied to the policies identified in the comp plan. For example, if the Puget Sound region has high population growth and new people prefer rural counties to urban ones, Jefferson County could experience more pressure on its goals and policies related to rural centers, crossroads, and MPRs. The report would also articulate how the Future Scenarios process can be further applied to completion and implementation of the comprehensive planning process. b. How it’s delivered: Word document or PowerPoint. c. What FS needs from Planning Team: One or two general check-in meetings in May/first week of June to identify policies of interest and two report review periods the weeks of 6/9 and 6/23. NEXT STEPS The Planning Team will review this memo and let the FS Project Team know their initial thoughts and questions (if any), including if they’d like to move forward with either of the proposed products or a variation. This memo will be discussed at a check in the week of May 26.