ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES OF MEETING

REGULAR SESSION - OCTOBER 4, 1999

Mr. Tate presented Ordinance #C-110-99, in the matter of Amending the Findings of Fact of the Island County Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Pertaining to Areas of More Intensive Rural Development. The Ordinance proposes changes to Ordinance #C-95-99 adopted on August 23, 1999 as follows:

Delete Finding #75 concerning conservation easements for Bayview and Livingston

Bay Heights

Finding #77 through #85. Language reflected from Growth Board Hearing Order

and going through RAID by RAID reiterating what the Hearings Board said for

each RAID and County response for each of those RAIDs.

Charts attached show those changes. The shaded areas show the new revised RAIDs

under what had been the old RAID boundary and totals for each region, and Island

County total.

Additional page shows parcel size break down chart of what was adopted on 9-28-99

and the revision as of October 4, 1999.

At this time, Mr. Tate presented one additional suggested Finding, No. 86: [GMA doc. #4843]

86. Revised statistics tables are attached which show changes in estimated theoretical development potential and parcel/lot statistics. In summary, the changes to respond to the Growth Board order reduce RAID acreage by 1,026 acres (10%) and the theoretical development potential of RAIDs by 670 lots (gross) or 240 lots (net).

Mr. Tate confirmed that the change requested is on the map for Useless Bay/Bayview RAID reflecting the 4-1/2 acre corner, although there is no specific finding associated with that particular piece of property.

John Graham, Citizens Growth Management Coalition, commented that by and large he and the Coalition had been happy to work with the County in all remand issues; however, the RAID issue was not one the Coalition received a fair hearing on, referencing the Coalition’s letter 8/20/99 to the Board [GMA doc. #4625 ]; an e-mail from Mr. Graham to Mike Shelton on 8/24/99 [GMA doc. # 4643] complaining that all the Coalition’s points on RAIDs were dismissed out of hand and everyone else’s got discussed but theirs; and a letter from the Department of Ecology dated 9/9/99 concerning the West Beach RAID [GMA doc. #4743]. The Coalition does not agree with the remand actions taken on RAIDs, in particular, the Bayview RAID, quoting from the 8/20/99 Coalition letter:

"Bayview. We note that the County has added an area of approximately 150 acres

that lies West of Bayview road and extends from Gabelein Road on the south

to Howard Road on the north. We know of no development or platting in this

area and do not agree that it should be included.".

Mr. Graham advised that when the time came, the Coalition would inform the Growth Board about its disagreement with those RAIDs.

No further comments were made from members of the public.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Ordinance #C-110-99, PLG-039-99 with the additional Finding of Fact No. 86 presented this date by Jeff Tate. [GMA doc. # 4844]

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE ISLAND COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO AREAS OF MORE INTENSIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT.

) ) ORDINANCE C-110-99 ) PLG-039-99 ) )

1. West Deer Lake

WHEREAS, the Board also found the density permitted in the Livingston Bay Heights RAID invalid; and

WHEREAS, on August 23, 1999, the Board of Island County Commissioners adopted ordinance C-095-99, amending the Island County Zoning Atlas changing the boundaries of Harrington Lagoon, Land’s Hill, Livingston Bay Heights, Penn Cove, Teronda West and Useless Bay/Bayview and providing additional information to the Growth Management Hearings Board for the West Beach and West Deer Lake RAIDs; and

Phil Bakke, Comprehensive Plan Manager, presented Resolution #C-126-99 (PLG-027-99), regarding Impact Fees resulting from the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Annual Review Cycle. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 706/99 is an application regarding a request to require that Island County commission a study to initiate a study to implement impact fees. The application was submitted by John Graham on behalf of the Citizens Growth Management Coalition January 23, 1999. The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the proposed amendment: June 8, 1999 in Coupeville and July 7, 1999 on Camano Island.

He summarized the Planning Commission Findings [Exhibit 1 to the ordinance]:

Public Comments.

John Graham, speaking as the President, Citizens for Sensible Development [CSD], stated that CSD and the Coalition would continue to try for impact fees and a study to be done, believing

there was enough evidence to at least merit a thorough study and did not agree with the Planning Commission’s denial.

Bill Sievers, Freeland, disagreed with Mr. Graham’s view and agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that impact fees are not necessary.

There were no other comments from members of the public.

Board Deliberation:

Commissioner Thorn stated that in all conscience he could not support the recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission regarding impact fees, for several reasons:

• As long as the County maintains a practice with regard to the road system of shoving projects off into the future until the residual projects match the dollars available there will never be a demand; and if looking at the timeliness of those, that is not always born out.
• Where the Planning Commission stated that none of the school districts in Island County expressed any formal opinion or interest in initiating impact fees, the Stanwood-Camano School District did come before the Board several years back to request impact fees and were directed to talk to several larger builders on Camano regarding mitigation fees in two specific developments. That School District recently passed a $25 million bond issue imposing significant additional taxes on taxpayers of the District, which could have been

reduced if impact fees would have been collected when originally requested.

• The statement by the Planning Commission referring to RCW 82.02.060(2) indicating that provides for an exemption from impact fees for low income housing but does not provide for affordable housing is misleading. The statute reads that it may provide an exemption for low income housing "and other development activities with broad public purposes".

Affordable housing is a subject of broad public purpose.

For those reasons, Commissioner Thorn could not support Resolution #C-126-99/PLG-027-99.

Commissioner McDowell commented that the Stanwood-Camano School District system had the opportunity to do what was required, i.e. development of a capital facilities plan and formally request [i.e. by letter] impact fees; to date that has not occurred. Today was another opportunity for the District to have done that. Impact fees are for new impacts and cannot be used for addressing existing problems. For the topics covered by impact fees, that has not been demonstrated as a problem. He agreed with the Planning Commission on this issue.

Chairman Shelton was opposed to impact fees. He recalled that several years’ ago the then Superintendent of the South Whidbey School District said he did not want to impose impact fees on South Whidbey because the minute impact fees were imposed another levy would never be passed. While the Chair understood the costs associated with building two new schools on Camano, he did not think the levy Commissioner Thorn mentioned being split between two counties passed by an overwhelming margin and it is quite possible that had that school district imposed impact fees the levy would have failed. He mentioned too that he thought the $25 million could not be generated through impact fees in the six year time frame required. While

Commissioner Thorn suggested the County puts out into the future some road projects, the Chairman thought it was important to understand that impact fees are for improving roads for the purpose of bringing an LOS into compliance, and in Island County that has not been demonstrated in the capital facilities plan as being necessary. A study was done by the Public Works Department who found that in this County the goals can be achieved, even with the high population figure, by 2020 without imposing impact fees, and that being said did not think the basis exists to impose impact fees.

Commissioner McDowell moved approval of Resolution #C-126-99, PLG-027-99 in the matter of amending chapter 17.03 Island County Code regarding Impact Fees. Motion, seconded by Chairman Shelton, carried by majority vote; Commissioner Thorn voted in opposition. [GMA doc. #4845]

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03, ISLAND COUNTY CODE REGARDING IMPACT FEES

) ) RESOLUTION C-126-99 ) PLG-027-99

Vince Moore, Planning Director, presented Resolution #C-127-99 (PLG-029-99), regarding an application for the Utilities Element, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #707/99, also the result of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Annual Review Cycle, submitted by John Graham on behalf of Citizens for Sensible Development January 23, 1999.

This was an issue before the Planning Commission at public hearing on June 24, 1999. At that time the original application language was proposed to be revised in its entirety by the applicant, but as Mr. Moore pointed out, the Code does not provide for the amendment of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment after its original submittal docket, establishment and consideration and report by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission looking at the proposed revision decided that would be appropriate to deny the revision without prejudice and deny it on procedural grounds that it was not submitted in a timely fashion. Mr. Moore clarified that while the notice and agenda indicate the applicant withdrew the proposal, that in fact did not occur, rather had modified the proposal substantially.

Mr. Moore advised that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was denial of the application. The proposed revision had been based on the Citizen Advisory Committee [CAC] to Puget Sound Energy [PSE recommendations. There were a number of items the CAC had presented which PSE was agreeable to undertake without government intervention, and the Planning Commission heard from PSE who opposed the incorporation of the CAC recommendations into an amendment that would take the form of force by the County, and asked PSE be given time to prove that they would be able to implement the recommendations of the CAC. The Planning Commission agreed and gave the utility a year to demonstrate its acceptance and compliance with the recommendations of CAC. PSE clearly found that the original submission was not acceptable, and PSE as well as the Washington Utilities and Trade Commission testified against it. In the event that the CAC recommendations of CAC are not implemented by PSE, the Planning Commission would be willing to entertain an amendment proposing this as County policy next year.

John Graham, speaking on behalf of Citizens for Sensible Development [CSD] agreed Mr. Moore fairly presented the issue before the Planning Commission and what occurred. He

provided an update at this point, noting that the amendment was intended as a means of putting some "fire" under PSE after the severe power outages experienced last winter, especially on South Whidbey. The Company came out with a report of 13 things that could be done to improve power reliability, of which only one was actually budgeted for. PSE’s budget will be presented by January 2000, and should be very clear whether they will accept the other 12 recommendations for upgrading reliability. If PSE adopts a budget creating those improvements the best thing would be continue to do nothing as far as a Comp Plan amendment. In terms of the amendment, he pointed out that he submitted the original amendment prior to the meeting process PSE started, and was the best he could do at the time. Mr. Graham did not object to the decision by the Planning Commission.

No others commented either for or against the recommendation contained in Resolution C-127-99.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Resolution #C-127-99, PLG-029-99 denying CPA 707/99 as written. [GMA doc. #4846]

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03, ISLAND COUNTY CODE REGARDING A UTILITIES ELEMENT

) ) RESOLUTION C-127-99 ) PLG-029-99 )

Keith Dearborn, Consultant/Special Legal Counsel, commented that as indicated at the end of the Public Hearing on September 13, 1999 on Ordinance #C-97-99 [PLG-019-99], amendments have been prepared and submitted at this time [GMA doc. #4796] and provided a copy at this time to the Board and John Graham. Mr. Dearborn confirmed that copies would be provided by electronic mail all of the documents to all parties who testified at the September 13^th hearing, and the parties therefore will have the materials a week in advance of the hearing scheduled for October 11, 1999 at 1:30 p.m.

At 1:00 p.m. as scheduled, the Board met in Executive Session as allowed under R.C.W. 42.30.

110 (1) (i) to meet with special legal counsel to discuss pending litigation. The original estimated length of meeting was about 1-1/2 hours, but continued until 4:00 p.m. There was no announcement made on conclusion of executive session.

The Budget Workshop, initially set for 1:30 p.m. and subsequently rescheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. was canceled due to the unanticipated length of Executive Session. The Budget Workshop was rescheduled for Special Session beginning at 9:00 a.m. on October 19^th as follows:

ATTEST:

_______________________

Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board