Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/09/1994 2925 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington December 9, 1994 CALL TO ORDER - Deputy Mayor Ostrowski called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council SPECIAL MEETING: to order at 3:06 p.m. He advised the group that Mayor Sargent would be joining the group shortly; her plane from Seattle was running late. - ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent [arrived at 3:25 p.m.], Councilmembers Braun, Doyle, Hulett, McKeown [arrived at 4:10 p.m.], and Ostrowski. Members Absent: Councilman Schueler. Clallam County Commissioners Duncan and Cameron. Commissioners Present: City Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, K. Ridout, and D. Sawyer. County Staff Present: J. Rumpeltes and D. Stalheim. Public Present: None. Growth Management Deputy Mayor Ostrowski stated this meeting was being held with the Commissioners for the purpose of discussing issues pertinent to .Growth Management. Manager Pomeranz indicated he and Jim Rumpeltes, County Administrator, had met and prepared a draft agenda for this meeting. Accordingly, the first item of consideration would be to receive an update on the current status of Growth Management. Planning Director Collins distributed a list of development regulations. He reported that in July, 1991, the City adopted Urban Growth Areas. A critical areas ordinance was adopted by the City in November, 1991, and the County-wide Planning Policy was adopted by the City in July, 1992. Most recently, the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan in June, 1994, and was granted a six-month extension to January 1, 1995, for completion of development regulations. During this time, the State eliminated the financial grant to the City, so there is no longer a staff person dedicated to the task of Growth Management. The City is working on the list of development regulations with a citizens advisory committee, and a separate departmental task force has been working on development standards. Director Collins referenced the list just distributed and noted the City has an ordinance on urban services, which is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission and City Council this month. Also before the Planning Commission is an ordinance establishing the process by which the Comprehensive Plan will be amended. It is anticipated that such amendments would come forward on an annual basis, probably in the spring. The Planning Commission has been reviewing Zoning Code regulations for adoption and will be reviewing them again for text changes. An additional eight months will be taken for the map changes and, in this regard, the City is unsure as to the consequences at the State level. There will be an inclusion in the Zoning Code text such that if there is a conflict between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation, then a rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan will be necessary before proceeding. At its last meeting, the City Council reviewed SEPA ordinance amendments referencing the Comprehensive Plan, as well as some of the environmental ordinances. A public hearing on the new Shoreline Master Program has been set for January by the State Department of Ecology. The City approved the draft Shoreline Master Program, and forwarded it on to the State for review. It is the City's expectation that the subdivision ordinance would be addressed in the spring of 1995, and work would continue with the County on the Port Angeles Subarea Plan and the County's Comprehensive Plan. Director Collins indicated the City recognizes, in the public review process and in dealing with intergovernmental relations, the timeframes to do development regulations is not adequate. The City is, however, trying to proceed as best it can. In the ensuing discussion, Director Collins indicated the City is trying to scale down its involvement in Growth Management. -I- 2926 CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 9, 1994 Growth Management Dave Stalheim, County Planning Director, reported the County is still in the process (Cont'd) of working on its Comprehensive Plan. This has been a time consuming task, as the County has had to deal with other tasks and issues due to the size of the land involved and the diversity of the planning picture. As a result, the County has been focusing on two different tracks at one time. One track addresses such broad issues as resource lands, urban growth areas, and transportation issues. The County Planning Commission conducted public hearings in August and has been very deliberative in meeting and considering all of the public input. Over 300 changes have been made to the Plan by the Commission and the staff. The Plan should be ready for submission to the Commissioners in January. Mr. Stalheim indicated there are four subarea plans dealing with specific land and transportation issues. The Port Angeles plan includes the UGA proposal, and a recommendation should be forwarded to the City by the end of the year. It must be recognized that the Port Angeles plan is a watershed/water quality plan and a Growth Management Plan combined. The plan will probably be separated, because the watershed component is not regulatory, but is educational in nature. The County will be sending a letter to the City asking for concurrence of water quality issues. At the same time, the Growth Management Plan will be forwarded to the City Council, who may wish to forward the plan to the City Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Mr. Stalheim suggested the possibility of the City and County Planning Commissions meeting in joint session to conduct a public hearing. Similarly, the County Commissioners and City Council may also wish to conduct a joint public hearing in order to streamline the process. Both entities will be receiving the same public input, so it may be expedient to have the hearings together. Mr. Stalheim expressed hope that the development regulations would be effected much sooner, with final adoption scheduled by July 1. Mayor Sargent arrived at the meeting and assumed the chair. At this time, County Administrator Rumpeltes advised the group that the County Commissioners were of the opinion that discussions needed to take place with regard to possible changes in the law at the State level. Commissioner Cameron indicated the question to the City is, if the County were to lobby the Legislature to change the law to allow the County to opt out of Growth Management, what would the City's position be on this issue? He advised the group that, as the County gets further into the process, it has become abundantly clear that the County cannot satisfy its constituency and still meet the intent of growth management. There are still many questions as to the direction to proceed, and with the growth areas and the associated decisions, it will be difficult for Clallam County to accomplish what it needs to accomplish and still meet the requirements of Growth Management. Administrator Rumpeltes informed the group that this is the number one issue before the Association of Washington Counties. Discussion followed as to whether other counties may take the same position on this matter, and Commissioner Cameron expressed the opinion that the County is lacking a clear understanding of how to proceed in spite of being told that the Legislature will clearly define what is to be done. It is the County's position that it would be better to get out and then proceed with what needs to be done in rural Clallam County. Commissioner Cameron cited the example of the Carlsborg area where he cannot represent the landowners and people in that area and still comply with Growth Management. If this were to go to a hearings board, the County would likely lose. The County would have a large segment of property owners who would also lose. Commissioner Cameron felt the County is at a crossroads where a decision must be made. In the ensuing discussion, Councilman Braun asked what would happen to what has been accomplished thus far. Commissioner Cameron indicated the County would not quit, but would continue on in a direction to satisfy most people and still meet the intent of Growth Management. He noted the County is committed to long range planning, but it must be accomplished in a workable environment. Mayor Sargent was aware of other jurisdictions wanting to opt out of Growth Management. However, she felt the need to build on what has been accomplished. She acknowledged the State deadlines have proven to be unrealistic, and funding sources have dried up. Councilman Hulett noted that Growth Management then becomes an unfunded mandate. Commissioner Duncan stated it was the County's hope that planning could be accomplished from a grassroots push. They have tried to get as many people as possible involved in the process so that it becomes a citizens plan. It is hoped that a plan can be completed which satisfies the people of the County. Commissioner Cameron noted the biggest issue is that of Urban Growth Areas, what you can and cannot do, and how you provide for them. If the County can opt out of Growth Management, then all parties involved can determine among themselves what is and is not acceptable as to timing and development of a given area. Discussion followed as to the cost of Growth Management to the County and the fact that the County felt it would cost more in defending legal actions that will result because of the legislation. 2927 December 9, 1994 Growth Management Mayor Sargent noted the importance of working together to resolve differences. (Cont'd) Commissioner Cameron agreed and, citing the Deer Park area, felt the City and County could work cooperatively to decide the future of the area without Growth Management. A question was raised concerning financial impact, and Mayor Sargent indicated there must be assurances that the State won't ask for a return of previously granted funding. She inquired as to the County's timeframe on this issue, and Commissioner Cameron responded the County plans to start the process as early as this coming week. He indicated the County's three legislators would be contacted for support. Further, he indicated the importance of support from the City of Port Angeles, as well as from the other cities in the County. Manager Pomeranz noted the State paid for the Comprehensive Plan, which was money well spent on a greatly needed document. Councilman Hulett noted that the Growth Management Act was supposed to leave control to the people, but rather it has required that everything be forwarded to the State for review. Mayor Sargent reported on the AWC meeting she was just attending, and one of the agenda items was to prioritize issues for the Legislature next year. She noted that Growth Management was one of them, but because of returning for this meeting, she was unable to attend and hear the outcome. Commissioner Cameron felt the I-5 corridor likes and needs Growth Management. It was his hope that legislation could be structured such that counties under a certain population could be allowed out. Councilman Ostrowski inquired as to the future of the RTPO, and Commissioner Cameron was of the opinion that it could probably be continued, as many good things have come out of Growth Management and should be ongoing. Councilman Braun asked about projected growth as it relates to population levels for opting out, and Commissioner Cameron responded that 75,000 is the population projected for the year, 2010. Mayor Sargent emphasized the need for the City to consider all of the ramifications if the County opts out; the City needs time to consider the options. Manager Pomeranz asked if the County could document its decision so the City has something specific to consider. Commissioner Cameron noted it is timely to present such a request to the Legislature; it would be helpful if all the cities were in agreement with the County on this issue. Staff members from the City and County were asked for input at this time, and Mr. Stalheim likened the issue to landowners seldom coming forward to ask that regulations be placed on their property. Similarly, local governments have been placed under the dictate of the State. The County didn't have the population figures until three months into Growth Management, and it was at that time that the County learned it was included in Growth Management. Had there been an option at that time, it would have been likely that the County wouldn't have wanted to be subject to the dictates of Growth Management. As a planner, he supported the concepts of Growth Management; his concern was that the hearings board has turned into a legislative board by virtue of some of the interpretations being made. The hearings board has not allowed some of the "bottoms up" processes to take place as was originally intended with the Growth Management Act. With regard to decisions of the hearings board on urban growth areas and urban densities, everyone was operating under one set of interpretations for over two years, only to have them modified later by the hearings board. It is difficult to know what the future direction will be, and Mr. Stalheim noted the County would not give up on long range planning. It is uncertain as to the ramifications of withdrawing from Growth Management, particularly as relates to certain financial incentives which may be affected. In addition, it would behoove the County to closely monitor all related legislation even though it may not be participating in Growth Management. Director Collins felt that, from the City's perspective, the Growth Management Act has been much less onerous than from the County's perspective. To a large extent, the City has attempted to try and facilitate development within the Urban Growth Areas, relieving property owners and developers from a lot of case-by-case review known in the past. As he indicated earlier, rezones would have to be requested for those properties not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. From the City's perspective, the work done to date would facilitate development decisions as opposed to making them more regulatory. Director Collins was unsure as to how the legal issues would be played out, but from a planning perspective it is anticipated that less review would take place if the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied. Manager Pomeranz pointed out that, with or without Growth Management, the City would still effect the same type of planning efforts and still have more flexibility due mainly to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Collins indicated that discussions have been held about doing away with SEPA environmental policies in favor of the Growth Management process. From the City's perspective, there are some substantial gains to be made in Growth Management. Commissioner Cameron agreed on the affect within the city limits, but he felt the real problems would occur in the Urban Growth Areas. As an example, he posed the question as to why the County included the Deer Park area in an Interim Growth -3- 2928 CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 9, 1994 Growth Management Area. The City Council members agreed they have had the same question. (Cont'd) Commissioner Cameron continued that the County has been forced to place that area in a UGA, as the only place you can have development is in a UGA. Councilman Doyle pointed out that development could occur if this requirement weren't in place, and Commissioner Cameron indicated that, to preserve the private property interests of the area, the County has been forced to place it in the UGA and fight it out with the City. However, in the absence of Growth Management, the County would be free to resolve the issue. A second related issue is the provision of services within an Urban Growth Area in that services must be present before any further development can occur in the area. Commissioner Cameron emphasized the possibility of doing away with the Urban Growth Areas in those areas where development make sense, allow the preservation of property interests presently there, and then address the matter of resolving urban services that will be needed. Planner Sawyer agreed with what he had heard thus far from Mr. Stalheim and Director Collins, but he wondered if the City and County might be entering unchartered territory. He noted how various laws affected planning differently before Growth Management; is it to be assumed those laws are still in place.'? Is it possible to take the best of both worlds and proceed.'? Commissioner Cameron felt the City and County were doing planning long before Growth Management. Planner Sawyer indicated the Growth Management Act provided certain authority in order to accomplish certain goals, and he questioned where this authority would be granted outside the realm of Growth Management. Lengthy discussion followed, and Mayor Sargent indicated Growth Management has forced us to do things that probably would have been done anyway; it just forced us to do it sooner. She indicated the City would consider this matter once the County has decided how it will proceed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m. Clerk -4-