11/04/2008: "Essential Public Facilities Ord “Not Legal”"

A public hearing today ((Nov 4, 2008 at 2:00 p.m) on a proposed amendment to San Juan County’s Comprehensive Plan To Allow For EPF (Essential Public Facilities) has got off to a rough start (Related Story).

County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord and staff members of Public Works have questioned the legality of the PC (Planning Commission) recommendations that limit where EPFs can be placed without a full review, and “a standard is proposed for future siting regulations which would likely have the effect of indirectly precluding” where an EPF could be placed.

PW (Public Works) had objected to the PC members that PW needed to have a free hand when it came to placing and designing EPFs, examples of which were included in a list that PW wanted approved included barge landings and dump sites.

The news from Gaylord was not well received by Bob Myer, who has consistently been concerned that the council is scheduling hearings, and being asked to make decisions, without having time to fully understand what is being presented; and in some cases seeing the documentation and the proposals only a day -or on the same day- they are asked to act.

The Council has a policy of having “three touches” on a proposal, the third of which can be a public hearing. Myhr complained that because they have not been doing this in all cases, “this is not the proper way for us to act.”

Councilman Rich Peterson said it seemed to him “this [ordinance] is not ready for us;” but then added that because this “ordinance drives a lot of things..solid waste, we need to deal with it” now.

Councilman Kevin Ranker asked Myhr if he was suggesting they cancel the hearing. Myhr said he was; and Councilman Alan Lichter said “I think we should cancel it.”

The draft presented to the PC was questioned by the planning commission members on a number of levels, not the least of which was an expanded list of what defines and EPF that went far beyond the published State list.

The PC voted to accept part of the state list as the county list, and this removed some of the EPF definitions that are of high interest to public works. Gaylord said that accepting only a portion of the state list as the county list was not correct, since the law requires a county to establish a “substitute process for identifying essential public facilities in the comprehensive plan,” and the PC failed to do so.

Gaylord asked the Council to send the proposal back to the PC; presumably so they will agree to do what they are asked to do, not what they recommend be done.

After more discussion, it was decided to go forward with the hearing, at which time Senior Planner Shireene Hale would provide some “bullet points” to the Council that would allow them to understand the problem, provide a solution to Gaylord’s objections, and possibly allow the council to make a motion to approve it.