01/23/2008: "Planning Commission Rejects/Accepts UDC Change"

( Planning Commission meets in Friday Harbor)

The PC (SJC Planning Commission) has rejected a request to allow the UDC (Uniform Development Code) to be revised at will, but recommends an interim ordinance for controlled changes up to four times a year, but with a two year sunset clause.

In an at times contentions meeting on Friday, the Commission debated the pros and cons of allowing what one of the members of the PC said was a request to allow the CD&PD (Community Development & Planning Department) to take the annual UDC review of recommended changes and “throw it out and say ‘do whatever you want, whenever you want”, and added this “doesn’t really make it work for me.”

Both CD&PD Senior Planner Shireene Hale and Director Ron Henrickson told the Commissioners that the requirement for an annual review of proposed changes to the UDC had “only been in place since 2005.. that it was not in the code prior to 2005.” Hendrickson stated “I almost think that in 2005 it was an oversight by a staff person.. there is no discussion that we can find related to it.”

This caused some raised eyebrows on the PC members, and mumblings in the audience by those who have over the years been involved with County planning. Henrickson has had a problem in the past of proposing changes without understanding the past history of the subject, and this was another example of that, which became embarrassingly obvious when former planning director Laura Arnold testified the provision had always been there, and that Henrickson and Hale had misread the history of the UDC.

In response to concerns by PC members about allowing changes at will, Henrickson said the change was necessary because the once a year requirement “hamstrings the department from proceeding in an orderly fashion -with the same degree of public input- of taking this in editable bites to move forward to deal with it.”

Henrickson noted there was a “huge backlog of changes that have not been addressed, and a huge number of changes that need to be addressed to make this community work and function.” Henrickson said “the changes have not been addressed in the two years that I have been here.”

Shireene Hale listed a number of additional reasons for the request, stating they believed it would speed up the process to allow OPEL’s project for low income housing to receive increased density bonus in a Critical Area, and also aid the CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance) to be enacted quicker. Henrickson said the staff had a number of proposed revisions to the UDC that needed to be changed to reduce the potential for future lawsuits.

Commissioner Lovel Pratt suggested that instead of allowing CD&PD to make changes whenever they decided to do so, that perhaps could change the requirement from the existing once a year review of suggested changes, to a new schedule that would allow more frequent changes, but only for a one or two year period with a “sunset” clause.

Commissioner Teri Williams express a concern that under either proposal, Henrickson would have the ability to arbitrarily prioritize which proposed changes would be processed, and wondered if proposals from the public would receive the same attention that his list would. Henrickson indicated that there would be two lists -as opposed to the one list now- one for the public, and one for staff; and that “the public ones ought to be dealt with on an annual basis;” which would mean only changes adopted by staff could be quickly made, and all others would be only looked at once a year.

Thomas said while she understood the convenience of what was being suggested, that it was “absolutely critical that we not shortchange the public information, because the public in this county is well educated and well informed, and participatory. so I don’t know if this is productive.”

While the Commission was in the process of reviewing and discussion of the request, and attempting to come up with a version that would allow a positive recommendation to the Council. Henrickson accused the Commissioners of micromanaging the request for the change.

Henrickson’s comments did not appear to sit too well with some on the Commission, but they continued to debate the proposal.

As the discussion moved back and forth between opposing views on the need to leave the ordinance as is, or make some change, Commissioner Brian Ehrmantraut summed up the main objections to the proposal before them.

Ehrmantraut said CD&PD are stating “one of the reasons for doing this is because we need to revise the code to reduce the cost of lawsuits…but that is not going to happen by submitting piecemeal changes throughout the year, that is something that happens as we examine all of the interconnecting pieces of it, and review it very thoughtfully..” and then added that he did not “think that this proposal accomplishes” that.

Commissioner Barbara Thomas said “I have a lot of Brian’s concerns,” and said she could not “see this full integration of this change in the code getting them out of the mess [of having a backlog of proposed changes].”

Thomas said “I’ve spent my whole professional life scheduling very complex integrated projects.. and you do it by systematically writing it all out and prioritizing.. I don’t really think this [ordinance] is the answer.”

At this point Henrickson seemed to be amendable to minor changes when he stated “I have no problem with you recommending a two year ‘sunset’, and then you reevaluate if that is working -that we are caught up or not- and if there has been adequate public information or not.” But then he added that “Not recognizing it just hamstrings me while hamstring the CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance) process.”

Henrickson then became agitated with the lack of support for the proposal when it became clear the Commission might reject it or make changes to it, and added that “In a way it’s good, because I just won’t have to deal with it, somebody else will. But if you really want to get these things done, we got what, fifty years experience here telling you this is what you have to do to get this done.”

Ehrmantraut was less than impressed with the ordinance, and said that he saw it as “the Planning Department coming before us with no plan of getting out of the mess they have; no quantification for how big the mess is; no staffing projections; no budget projections, no priorities; but they want this very powerful tool to pick and choose and evade the current process.”

He added “I think it does a disservice to the public, and produces an undue burden on them to participate in all of these activities.” As for Hendrickson’s statements, he responded “We have discussed if it would be possible to do this (make changes) quarterly, or twice a year,” and “we are told from our planning department that ‘No that will not fix our problem, just reject it if you cannot accept it as is.’”

Thomas agreed with Ehrmantraut and said that “I have a lot of Brian’s concerns… I can’t see the full integration of this change in the code getting [us] out of the mess.” Thomas is an architect, and reflected that “I’ve spent my whole professional life scheduling very complex integrated projects.. and you do it by systematically writing it all out and prioritizing.. I don’t really think this ordinance is the answer.”

Commissioner Karin Agosta felt “this proposal has come to us too early in it’s life; I am not ready for this kind of wholesale approval, in large measure because of what it will do to the citizens of the county; and if there is anything we don’t need in planning it is more serious grief from the citizenry.. for me that is an important reason.”

Commissioner Stephen Adams also had reservations on a trial attempt with a sunset clause that “Once you slip it in the door, maybe your not going to pull it back out.”

Williams noted that in the past the yearly Docket of proposed changes to the UDC “wasn’t working because we didn’t have staff, and now we do, let’s see how we can do with that… it sounds like (CD&P) is asking for something [they] don’t have plans for.”

Commissioner Bob Gamble was supported of giving CD&PD “this tool”, and responded to Williams comment by rhetorically asking “How often do we go though a few years without staff leaving, I don’t think it has ever happen, I don’t think it is going to happen, so there is not going to be full staff” in the future.

Gamble had the last word on the concerns about the public process when he stated that “I would say that for all of the members [of the Commission] that are worried about this, and the few members of the general public that are worried about this, talk to their friends that are worried about this, and go forward to the County Council, and make those concerns known.”

As for the argument on the importance of dealing with proposed changes as a whole, Gamble said “by having things broken up in little things there is a greater opportunity for public input.”

Dr. Chris Clarke, testified that state law “links all three elements (the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline regulations, and the UDC), and that “all proposals shall be considered concurrently.”

Stephanie Buffum-Field testified that “it is good to see all of the changes on an annual basis, categorizing them, and really thinking things through.”

Thomas made a motion to recommend to the County Council they adopt the proposed ordinance as an interim measure, including language that allows action in an emergency, and with a two year sunset clause.”

Mike Kaill and Steve Adams objected to the motion because it was “specifically what Ron asked us not to do” when he told them to accept it as is, or reject it. Thomas explained that it was their obligation as a commission to make recommendations, “it is our job” she said. Motion failed.

Ehrmantraut made a new motion that was the same as the Thomas motion, but included a time limit of “not more than four UDC reviews per year, with a two year sunset clause.”

Motion passed on a split vote. It will now go the County Council for their review.