Good morning,

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TOMORROW (TUESDAY, 7:30 PM):
As the comprehensive plan process heats up, nearing completion of the EIS, the planning commission will require more input into the process. The Commission has been receiving regular updates from Tom Beckwith, the City's consultant guiding this process. An action item on tomorrow's agenda is a bit confusing, however, and we'll attempt to gain clarification before the meeting. Our confusion results from a rather large, gaping "hole" in the plan (explained below) that needs to be fixed before the plan can go forward for consideration.

The Plan currently reflects four growth scenarios:

• No Growth Scenario: This is supposed to reflect our 1994 - and current - comp plan. This is the baseline, or foundation, from which all other scenarios begin.

• Low Growth Scenario: This scenario will use the No Growth Scenario baseline, and add land near the city's water plant on 124^th north of the city, as well as a bit of land near Reese Park.

• Medium Growth Scenario: With few exceptions, this scenario would move the UGA boundary northward to 124^th St. SE, generally following the northwest-to-southeast direction of the Bonneville Power transmission lines. (This scenario also includes acreage east of Rice Road.)

• High Growth Scenario: Expands Sultan's UGA northward to 116^th Street S.E., and a bit westward near the Red Apple.

For those unfamiliar with what a comprehensive plan is, in simplest terms it's a planing blueprint that includes all the elements -- "ingredients" if you will -- needed to plan Sultan's future over the next 20 years. Those elements/ingredients include estimates of how large a police force we'll need, what road, water and sewer infrastructure will be required to support residents from the hundreds of new homes being planned, and what sort of employment base will be required to provide family wage jobs. In short, it includes every factor that needs to be considered to allow Sultan to plan professionally; so it can eliminate any nasty little surprises which, thus far in our history, have been the rule rather than the exception.

(By the way, this is not a Master "Vision" for the city, but rather, sort of a master toolbox. And as long as the word "vision" has come up again, I was pleased to hear Margaret Skogland at the last Commission meeting urge the creation of an overall city image.)

My confusion stems from a two-years'-plus common knowledge by those on the Council and Commission of a significant number of acres that have never had any Land Use or Capital Facility plan performed on them. Ever. This makes the Plan's baseline (the start point for all scenarios in our new comp plan) -- and which is represented by the "no growth" scenario -- incomplete. It is the "hole" I previously mentioned.

By way of (hopefully) a simple explanation, when the 1994 comp plan was performed, the city was required to forecast its infrastructure -- and perhaps more importantly, its ability to deal with it financially -- on a specific number of acres. That is what was published as our 1994 Plan. However, once the plan went to the county for approval, some political finagling occurred (what a surprise!), and our UGA was enlarged, i.e., significant acreage was added to our plan. And that would have been okay, too, except that it presented us with a HUGE problem no one here or at the county addressed: The county's UGA for Sultan is much larger than what was planned for and set out in our 1994 comp plan and did not include the planning mechanisms for the extra acreage. This is a key point because it means that our baseline, or starting point, for our new comp plan is using a land use and capital facilities plan which does not include the additional land.

The solution is actually rather simple, though it will require more time and perhaps money, to resolve: Tom Beckwith, Rick Cisar and our Planning Commission need to recalculate the "no growth scenario" so it's a true representative baseline for what the county shows as our UGA.

This problem has created confusion in our planning process for years, and has completely skewed our ability to appropriately plan for needed infrastructure. That skewing will continue unless our "no growth" scenario is corrected. Let's try -- just for once -- to build on a solid foundation rather than doing things the quick-and-dirty, easy way. (What does it matter that this process may be delayed a month or more, if by doing so it ensures that Sultan's future infrastructure will be planned correctly?)

NOTE: I have posted two transcriptions on the website this morning that may help folks understand this subject, both of them recent Planning Commission meetings:

9-17-02: This transcription was not performed by me but by one of my transcriptionists, which is why I have not yet put it up. I've been holding onto it until I could find the time to insert the speakers' names (I'm familiar with their voices, she was not). Alas, that would occur about the same time as the first frost hits Hades, so I'm posting it "as is." But there's a good discussion by Beckwith of the dangers of planning using inadequate estimates of infrastructure needs.

10-15-02 (Incomplete transcription) This document includes only the first hour of the meeting. But two discussions should be helpful: One between Beckwith and Cliff Morris on the buildable lands study, and one between Beckwith and Ron Kraut concerning the problem of the differential baseline acreage.

The hearing on the sign ordinance will also be continued Tuesday night.

And, please, Sky Valley Weekly News, correct your 10-month advisement that the Planning Commission's start time is 7:00 PM rather than the correct time of 7:30 PM. It's driving me crazy. (Well, perhaps these days that’s not a drive but a short putt.)

The agenda packet is online for review, along with a summary of what I feel are some highlights.

At a recent council meeting, Mr. Broughton requested waiver of impact fees on a city-mandated demolition of a house he owned on First Street. It is unclear whether this is for fees currently owed or for future impact fees that might result from new construction. We requested the complete file on this subject October 3^rd, over one month ago through Public Information Request, but have not heard anything from the city.

Sultan Resident and ex-Planning Commissioner John Dick delivered a public information request to the city for this four-page letter signed (but, according to the mayor, not authored by him) to Chief Walser, ordering him back to work. Still no word from the city on when -- or if -- he will have that request fulfilled.

And while we're on the subject, the city has been flouting RCW 42.17 to the max in recent months. Most of our requests have simply been ignored. We still have one outstanding since December 5, 2001 and one from April 1, 2002. If we want them fulfilled, we will (apparently) have to hire a lawyer at $200 per hour and go to court and order the city to comply. One reason we have been dragging our feet is that the court could also demand that the city pay our attorneys' costs, plus a fee of up to $100 per day for each day they have failed to comply, costing the taxpayers a lot of $$$$.

But I guess when government has forgotten what it means to serve the people but aggressively acts as a tax-paid marketeer for private business, why should it be responsive to our needs to oversee their actions? We little guys just seem to get in the way of "progress."

A dedication of the donor tree/sculpture was held Saturday in the Sultan Library. This "Tree" is the beautiful result of those who love and revere books, education and enlightenment.

Jackie Personeus, the Sultan Library Manager, said: "We are here today to celebrate gifts. I wanted to remember my parents for the gift they gave me of the love of reading."

Jean Roberts, President of Friends of the Sultan Library, worked to coordinate the efforts of Jackie and artists Kevin Pettelle and Janice Hoagland that resulted in the final version: a Gingko tree cut down the middle, each half displayed on either side of the picture window located at the southeast corner of the library. The tree was designed and painted by Hoagland on carved plywood. On it are hung brass "leaves," which are plaques engraved with the sentiments of the $100-per-leaf donors. When I queried Kevin Pettelle about the time he had donated to this effort, his response was astounding: between 40 to 60 volunteer hours.

Mrs. Hoagland said there are 481 painted leaves on the tree. The significance of using the ginkgo tree is that it's the oldest still-surviving tree on earth that has been traced back to prehistoric times.

Donations provide the library with items not covered through taxes, bonds or other funding methods. We will have pictures posted on the website later this week, along with a list of donors. If you would like to order a "leaf" with your own engraved sentiment, contact Jackie at the Sultan library, 360-793-1695.

Have a productive week, all.

Loretta Storm

www.ittakesgrit.org

360-793-6683

(Please call or email me with any corrections to this update; comments can be submitted as an editorial or placed on our discussion forum.)