Board of County Commissioners: Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman, Tom Shaughnessy, Member; and Mike Shelton, Member .

Planning Commission: Commissioners Sheilah Crider, Bill Vincent, Rufus Rose, Anne Pringle and Richard Hart.

Consultant: Keith Dearborn.

Staff: Larry Kwarsick, Director, Public Works; Tim McDonald, Health Services Director; Doug Kelley, Hydrogeologist; Joye Emmens, Environmental Health Director; Keith Higman, Environmental Health Specialist; Mike Morton, Transportation Planner; Debby Ross, Adm. Asst. – Planning Commission.

Others: Approximately 11 people were in the audience [Attendance list on file].

Presentation by Doug Kelly: Overview of Hydrogeology of Island County [copy of slide presentation on file]

Presentation by Keith Higman: Regulatory processes of drinking water system review and approval.

Information contained in data base

Well logs

Well surveys

Laboratory analysis

Mr. Vincent recalled having heard some number of times there is not enough water to support the projected population. Based on Mr. Kelly’s analysis, he wondered if Island County had adequate water to support the growth.

Mr. Kelly replied that would depend on how much engineering was willing to be done. For example, for a single distribution system and all our wells right down the center of the island, could pump ten times what is being pumped right now. The problem is where people put their wells, and is not having grossly overtapped the resource.

Mr. Rose suggested that instead of identifying problem areas, to identify the areas where growth could easily occur. And, Mr. Kelly agreed that would be a good approach.

Presentation by Joye Emmens: Discussion of preliminary draft of proposed additions to the Comprehensive Plan relating to drinking water.

Updating the Transportation Plan which was adopted as an interim plan in 1994. The consultant has been given the average daily use traffic measurements, the final population distribution data, the Land Use Element, and employment projections from the EDC. That information is being put into Transportation Analysis Zones and used to project the growth impacts in the future associated with the transportation system. The next step is to look at LOS standards and what kind of activities or improvements need to be made. Both the Transportation and Capital Facilities Plan are presumed to be based on an adopted Land Use Plan. After adoption, will be able to provide feedback regarding financial feasibility.

Discussion: Rep. Anderson’s Bill – Requiring Concurrency Between County and State LOS Standards by the Year 2000. Mr. Dearborn distributed an Attorney General’s Opinion on whether there is a GMA requirement to re-plat old lots in the rural areas as a result of the 6094 amendments; the AGO indicates there is no legal requirement to do that.

He then noted some inaccuracies in a recent news article about the appeal by WEAN on critical areas. The article said the GM Hearings Board rejected the County’s regulations on fish and wildlife when in fact those regulations were not even considered. The article said the Board agreed with WEAN’s argument that existing codes need to be changed, but the Board did not address the issue, rather said it was not clear if the critical area regulations were properly adopted in 1991 and 1992. At the time, there were no Growth Board decisions to provide guidance on the adoption of critical area regulations. At the next hearing the Board intends to apply those decisions to Island County’s adoption procedures at the May 14 hearing.

Review of Phase B Work Plan. Mr. Dearborn noted the following sections of the Plan would be released on June 15:

• Capital Facilities
• Transportation
• Shoreline Master Plan Update
• Natural Lands Plan
• Park and Recreation Plan update
• Housing

For review in Phase B there will be some additional revisions to Title 17.02. Because of the Capital Facilities and Transportation Plans, the Planning Commission will probably return to the Land Use Plan and recommend some modifications. The shoreline environment designation recommendations and an issue paper on uses and standards will be available May 15. A good share of shoreline issues are addressed in Title 17. Staff is preparing a report on the results of a study on institutional uses, accessory uses, non-residential uses,

tourist/recreation uses in the rural area. The Institutional Use category in today’s zoning code is much broader than what he thought could be legally permitted in the rural area contains

many activities that do not need to locate in the rural area and should be channeled to the non-residential RAIDs.

Zoning Conversion Table [page 37] . Mr. Dearborn pointed out that the table did not show direct and straight correlation between the old classification and the new classification. There are many down-zones [and significant ones]. The residential zone has decreased from 34,000 acres to 14,000 acres.

Interlocal agreements and the review of county wide planning policy amendments. One of the concerns is how to make sure the city and the county’s open space corridors connect. Another concern relates to subdivisions built in the county which are now within the urban growth area of Oak Harbor and have failing septic systems. The Oak Harbor Planning Department is working with those residents in the formation of LIDs. Oak Harbor has said that a 50-50 split in the population allocation would require Oak Harbor to build a new sewage treatment plant.

Vision. Mr. Dearborn discussed his understanding of the Planning Commission’s vision for the Comprehensive Plan, and noted some of the guiding principles:

• Implement the GMA as close to Growth Board interpretations as are feasible
• Protecting rural character

Reasonable

Addresses the problem

Balance

• Containing existing areas
• Conserving open space through clustering
• Importance of Navy to Whidbey Island
• Job opportunities
• Protection for farmers and foresters
• Service standards issues
• Best available science

The workshop adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Attest:

____________________________

Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board