Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020711 District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of February 7, 2011 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Phil Johnson. PUBliC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: . Thanks to Mr. Shambley, IT Manager, for making positive changes to the County website; . Reminder to people to vote because there are issues that need to be addressed . There are no frogs in Lake Leland anymore due to the timber companies spraying urea on timber lands which goes into the lake and stores that sell "weed and feed" should give out the Material Safety Data Sheet for it when it is sold to educate people on how it should be handled; . The Courthouse neighborhood is overrun with parked cars every day the Courthouse is open and a suggestion was made that the County support the bus system by having employees use it . The lawsuit filed against the. County regarding the Commissioners Public Comment Period was not about time, matter, and place it was about regulation of content and viewpoint in a public forum. APPROV ALAND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a lmRnirnous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 04-11: Establishing a JeffCom Capital Fund 2. RESOLUTION NO. 05-11: Updating Right-of-Way Acquisition Procedures and Appointing Staff Responsible for the Various Elements of the Right-of-Way Acquisition Process, Replacing Jefferson County Resolution No. 84-99 3. RESOLUTION NO. 06-11: Creating a County Project Designated as CRI88I; Repaint the Queets Bridge, Clearwater Road 4. AGREEMENTS (2): Local Agency Agreement and Federal Aid Project Prospectus, Queets Bridge Painting Milepost 0.60 to Milepost 0.76; Project No. CRI88I; Funded 100% by Federal Highway Administration Funds; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation 5. AGREEMENT NO. LA-6359, Supplement No.3: Local Agency Agreement, Upper Hoh Road Milepost 4.0 Emergency Repair; Additional Amount of$828,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation 6. AGREEMENT NO. LA-6849, Supplement No.2: Local Agency Agreement, Upper Hoh Road Milepost 3.5 Emergency Repair, Willoughby Creek Bridge; Additional Amount of $683,300; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation Page I Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7,2011 .\>: .~ ',~ 7. AGREEMENT NO. 0663-98276, Amendment No.5: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG); Increasing Revenue Amount $11,200.00 for a Total of$51,200.00; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 8. AGREEMENT NO. 1063-93584, Amendment No.1: Early Family Support Services; A Reduction of $2,428.79 for a Total Compensation of $36,203.21; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 9. AGREEMENT NO. 1063-93588, Amendment No.1: Early Intervention Program; A Reduction of $2,456.96 for a Total Compensation of $36,623.04; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 10. AGREEMENT NO. C14950, Amendment No. 27: 2007-2011 Consolidated Contract; An Additional $234,285.00 for a Total of $2, 769,219.00; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 11. AGREEMENT NO. C14950, Amendment No. 28: 2007-2011 Consolidated Contract; An Additional $20,978.00 for a Total of$2,790,197.00; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 12. AGREEMENT: Breast Cervical and Colon Health Program; In the Amount of$15,385; Jefferson County Public Health; Public Health of Seattle and King County 13. AGREEMENT NO. 2010JL TSal: Salmon Creek Riparian Acquisition; Conservation Futures Project; In the Amount of $63,339.00; Jefferson County Public Health; Jefferson Land Trust 14. AGREEMENTS (2): 2011 Conn unity Services Grant Funding; 1) Jefferson County Fair Association; In the Amount of $4,500.00; 2) Olympic Connunity Action Programs; In the Amount of$126,500.00; Jefferson County Administrator 15. AGREEMENTS (4): 2011 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Grant Funding; 1) Jefferson County Historical Society; In the Amount $51,299.00; 2) Jefferson County Historical Society - Gateway Visitor Center; In the Amount of$55,516.00; 3) North Hood Canal Chamber & Visitor Center; In the Amount of $44,180.00; and 4) Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC); In the Amount of $80,840.00; Jefferson County Administrator 16. AGREEMENT: Maintenance for Audio Recording System Located in Commissioner's Chambers; In the Amount of$I,OOO.OO Plus Tax; Jefferson Audio Video Systems (JA VS), Inc.; Jefferson County Commissioners Office 17. AGREEMENT, Interlocal: Use of Property at City Water Reservoir Site for Construction of a Radio Tower and Related Facilities; Jefferson County JeffCom; City of Port Townsend 18. LICENSE: Energy Assistance Program; Jefferson County Public Works Solid Waste Division; Olympic Connunity Action Program (OlyCAP) 19. BID AWARD: 2011 Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products; Albina Asphalt 20. 2011 Certification of Road Levy; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State County Road Administration Board (CRAB) 21. Payment of Jefferson County VoucherslWarrants Dated January 24,2011 Totaling $437,307.14 and Dated January 25,2011 Totaling $61.00 and Dated January 28, 2011 Totaling $3,125.00 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with vouchers approved and signed by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners are retained by the Jefferson County Auditor and Public Works Department.) 22. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated January 20,2011 Totaling $91,888.15 and AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated January 21, 2011 Totaling $16,682.49 Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7,2011 ~. \; ,-~~ -~ ~,~" Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the January 24,2011 meeting as presented. Commissioner SuIIivan seconded the motion which carried by a lmanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Commissioner Johnson reported that he will be in Olympia this week a couple of times for several meetings including urging support for a bill to allow Counties to implement a tax on gravel extraction; he has previously testified on the State's Capital budget supporting the funding for Courthouse restoration grants; two weeks ago at the WSAC Legislative Steering Committee there was a proposal for legislation to allow Counties to implement, after a vote of the people, a tax for Public Health. This proposal was voted down by the members because of the backlash it could cause; Chairman Austin stated that he was on vacation last week but the week before he was in Olympia also meeting with our legislators on several items including a bill that would have prohibited an "assessing" substance abuse treatment center from treating clients. The Tourism Coordinating Council will have a teleconference meeting because of the distances that County citizens have to travel if the meeting is held either in the West End or here on the eastside of the County; Commissioner Sullivan reported on his meetings with the legislators that represent this County about things such as the Mental Health Sales tax. The Coastal Counties caucus discussed the ferry district proposal made by the Governor. This proposal will also be reviewed and coordinated with the various Ferry Advisory Committees and Transportation Committees in the State. Philip Morlev. County Administrator noted that the Economic Development meeting in Quilcene last week was a success with the people of the community puIIing together; the improvements that were recently made to the County website required a new web server and more bandwidth which all underscore the value of having a technical manager in this Department. INTRODUCTION AND INITIAL REVIEW: Washington State Department of Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Approval with Required Changes: Al Scalf Director of the Department of Community Development, presented the State Department of Ecology's approval of the County approved Shoreline Management Master Program with attachments. Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner and the project lead, reviewed the DOE approval (done 1/26/2011) of the Shoreline Master Program update submitted by the County. The approval letter included 3 attachments: A) Findings and Conclusions; B) Required Changes (24); and C) Recommended Changes (14). She presented a list of "inadvertencies" which include the correct citations in the SMP document and the page numbers for those citations. Commissioner Sullivan stated that SP AADs are an on-going source of confusion especially where they apply and what's changed in these new regulations. He noted that from the information provided in the "frequently asked questions" it appears that SP AADs that are in existence will be honored under the current Code. Also does the March 18, 2010 interpretation of the Code that was developed impact these SP AADs? Michelle McConnell explained that the issue ofSP AADs was included in the County's comment letter (dated May 10, 2010) sent to the DOE during the statewide comment period. Since there is nothing about SP AADs in the DOE list of required or recommended changes, it can be inferred that DOE is comfortable with the way the County has explained and voiced its' intent on this issue. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2011 SP ADDs that have been issued are vested to the Code that was in place of the time of their vesting. Other proposals that come in, once the new SMP is in place, would be subject to the provisions therein. There are some clarifications provided in this new document so that parcels that are platted with an identified setback in the plat will be honored. The language of the program would indicate that the same is true for SPAADs and existing permits. Commissioner Sullivan asked if this program is approved, and the SMP will take precedence in some areas, when will a property owner with an approved SP AAD be able to work under the new Shoreline Master Program and have the advantages of that rather than being under the Critical Areas Ordinance as they are now? Al Scalf explained that you are vested to the standards that are in effect the day of the complete application. Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager and Shoreline Administrator added that a Site Plan Approval Advanced Determination (SP AAD) does not mandate how a property will be developed it outlines an opportunity to develop property in that way. If a property owner decides or sees that they could do something more simply under the new program they could chose not to develop under the SP AAD and apply for a permit under the new regulations. A SP AAD allows the vesting to build under that approval for the duration of the SP AAD approval. Al Scalf added as of March 18, 2010 when the Legis1atore passed and the Governor signed into law the SMA/GMA connection both apply, so, any applications dated March 18 and forward are subject to both the Shoreline Master Program and the Critical Areas Ordinance. Michelle McConnell added that there are some existing exceptions that are clearly identified in the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed SMP states in 2 places that the County will recognize buffers and setbacks established by existing plats and development agreements. Al Scalf added that the SMP approved by the DOE is still not in effect and will not be until the Board takes action on Ecology's recommended and required changes. David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, then reviewed the only decision he could find that relates to public participation and the Shoreline Master Program and it came out of the context of the Whatcom County adoption of their SMP. He explained the possible need for more public participation through a public hearing if the Board suggests any changes to the SMP beyond the Ecology required and recommended changes. The County has 30 days to accept Ecology's recommended changes or propose an alternative. Ecology could accept, reject or resubmit any alternative proposal or Jefferson County can accept Ecology's recommendations as recommended. The question is will another public hearing by the Commissioners be required? The case from Whatcom County hasically said that if Ecology recommends a change to the locally approved SMP (LASMP) and the County adopts their recommendation then a hearing is not required. Because everyone agreed in the Whatcom County case that the changes Ecology was suggesting were not substantive, so the issue of what happens if Ecology recommends a substantive change and then the County adopts an alternative proposal, was not addressed. In a dissent, William Rolle wrote that a hearing would be required if the County's changes were substantive. Net pens may be an issue that requires a hearing in his opinion because what Ecology recommends and the County may propose as an alternative are opposite, and substantive. Philip Morley, County Administrator, asked if the Commissioners proposal is to leave in what was already proposed for Net Pens which has gone through a hearing at the County and at Ecology would it still require another hearing by the Board? What if the Commissioners conditional approve the Ecology recommendation and set new standards that Ecology or the County have not had a hearing. David Alvarez answered that the case law doesn't answer that question so it would be prudent for the Commissioners to hold another hearing. The GMA requirements for public participation are part of the guidelines in Section 201 of WAC 173-26-201 and in that regard the Court case indicates that public Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2011 participation needs to be part of this process. Typos and changes in definitions can be done without another public hearing. The Commissioners have to figure out what to do about the Ecology required and recommended changes and that will determine if a public hearing will be needed on any alternative proposals. Chairman Austin said that ~ on the net pen issue, the Commissioners decide that they would like the LASMP to still include a ban on net pens and that is what is sent to Ecology, then Ecology can approve, send back or reject that decision and send it back to County. David Alvarez stated that he feels another hearing may be required to be held by the Department of Ecology. Michelle McCounell stated there is a time line identified in the statute and she asked the Department of Ecology how they count the 30 days. The Project Officer explained to her that they don't feel the WAC is explicit about how to count 30 days (calendar days or bnsiness days.) In RCW 1.12.040 regarding computation of time (which clarifies that calendars days be used with the first day and the last day included unless the last day is a holiday, Saturday or a Sunday) the 30 days would start on January 27 as day I which means the County's response would be required on February 28. He did advise that because there is no automatic trigger for the County not sending a response, the County Can ask Ecology for additional time. The goal is to have agreement for all changes. There is also a statutory deadline for adoption of the SMP by December 1, 2011. Commissioner Sullivan noted that Ecology says there was considemble public support for the net pen ban but they concluded there wasn't enough science in the record to support the ban. If the only way to add to the record would be to open it up somehow, possibly with a public process. Ecology says that from a legal standpoint there is no authority for an outright ban through an SMP, so why go through that process if there is no authority to do it. Michelle McConnell added that the crux of the issue of banning net pens is that it is a ''water dependent" use mther than the shoreline jurisdiction. Al Scalf reported that staff recommends that they will bring a recommendation back to the Board in two weeks (Tuesday, February 22,2011) with a staffrecommendation on the required and recommended changes and the possible need for another public hearing. With that date the County will need to ask for an extension from the Department of Ecology. David Alvarez added that another part of the Whatcom County case that went to the trial court and then on to the State Court of Appeals on a separate issue that involves RCW 82.02.030 regarding a "taking." The Court of Appeals has determined that an SMP is a State regulation and because it is, it is not subject to RCW 82.02.020 it is not a illegal action by the local government. The State Supreme Court has accepted review of the case. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that the Reasonable Economic Use Variance (REUV) was stricken by Ecology in a couple of places in the SMP because they felt it might confuse people. He asked when the REUV can be used? Michelle McConnell answered that the intent of the language the County had included and Ecology has asked.be stricken, was to clarify that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is incorporated by reference in the SMP and a REUV is a provision of the CAO and the language was just trying to clarify that in other circumstances when the REUV would apply, if you are in shoreline it would be processed as a shoreline variance. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that in terms of Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week ofFebruary 7,2011 .'.,' .. . \'~."" ~ , understanding what relates when, he would like to see a chart that people can look at and see what they have to do in specific situations and what applies to them and when it applies. Michelle McConnell noted that the Watershed Stewardship Resource Center will have resource documents and support staffing to help people walk through the specific for their property. AI Scalf concluded the discussion by noting that staff will come back before the Board in 2 weeks with a reco=endation on the required and reco=ended changes and on the issue of public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS for MLAI0-349, Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendment Proposal; Expansion of Nonconforming Public Purpose Facilities and Changing Impervious Surface Requirements for these Facilities: Joel Peterson, Associate Planner-Lead with the Department ofCo=unity Development, reviewed the information provided in the Board's packet. This reco=endation is for the land use application that is a countywide proposal to amend the Unified Development Code in 2 places regarding expanding non-conforming public purpose facilities. Ray Serebrin, Jefferson County Public Library, was present to represent the applicant. The Planning Commission did a countywide review. The staff reco=endation is to approve the Planning Commission reco=endation and to direct DCD staff to draft ordinance to reflect the Planning Commission reco=endation. He then continued his review by noting that the Planning Commission proposal is to change both the building cap limitations and the impervious surface limitations for non-conforming public purpose facilities in the rural residential 1 to 5 zoning district. This analysis required review of what public purpose facility are (includes Public Works shops, cemeteries, schools, libraries, co=unity centers), a then look at how the planning for siting, development, and future expansion of these facilities will be accomplished. The issue of non -conformity was also reviewed as well as the history of the public purpose facility designation in Jefferson County. The development regulations build around the Comprehensive Plan and the values in the Comprehensive Plan have embodied what the rural character will be in Jefferson County and the GMA provides latitude in how the County plans for the future. There are 4 places in Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code: 1) JCC 18.15 land use categories (or classes) and the regulations that controls what is allowed in those categories; 2) JCC 18.20 the performance and use standards define how development will be done in the categories, 3) JCC 18.30 density, dimension and open space standards define the amount of impervious surface allowed, and 4) JCC 18 project, permit application framework. For a permit application on a non-conforming structure the conditional use permit process was reviewed which includes a public hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner. The Planning Commission reco=endation is to approve MLAIO-349 and to include a review of the portions of the Comprehensive Plan that deal with non-conforming public purpose facilities in the next Comprehensive Plan update. The DCD staffreco=endation concurs with the PlRnning Commission reco=endation which means that the PIRnning Agency reco=ends to the Board that non-conforming public purpose facilities have an exemption in JCC 18.22.60 for expansion limitations and the impervious surface limitation would not apply to such a facility. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2011 @),c", ~ -~._".. ~ , ~ AI Scalf, DCD Director, added that the Planning Commission discussed uses for the public and the private sector; they were also concerned about if public purpose facilities should be zoned countywide rather then making them non-conforming uses. The DCD staff will docket this issue to be addressed in the 7 year update of the Comprehensive Plan. Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, clarified that not all public purpose facilities in the County are non- conforming uses. The question is why is the library on ruraI residential land? It won't be once the UGA is up and running with the sewer, but the idea is that we wouldn't want to change the use table because we wouldn't want to site a new public purpose library in a ruraI residential zone, but we do want to make sure that our existing one can thrive. Rural character is addressed in the conditional use permit and an expansion needs to be consistent with the ruraI character. Commissioner Sullivan asked if this reco=endation would be consistent with the development regulations that are in the Tri Area UGA currently and when the UGA is finalized this regulation will still be in effect Stacie Hoskins answered that is correct AI Scalf added that the UGA regulations facilitate the expansion of the Library. Commissioner Sullivan stated that since the County is GMA compliant which opens funding opportunities, it is important that the County remain GMA compliant Commissioner Sullivan moved to accept the reco=endations of the planning agency, to approve the text changes to the Jefferson County Code as proposed in the application and to direct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the approved Code changes. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Philip Morley reviewed Note 19 and suggested a change to the line in the density, dimension and open space table that addresses the area of impervious surface coverage restrictions do not apply to public purposed facilities. AI Scalf noted that any public purpose facility application would require a stormwater permit. The wording of Note 19 would not negate the stormwater requirements because impervious surface is a component of the County Stormwater Plan. Philip Morley suggested that the Commissioners amend their motion to give direction to staff to follow the intent of the Plannine Commission reco=endation, but wordsmith for clarity. Commissioner Sullivan accepted that suggestion as part of his motion. Commissioner Johnson accepted the amendment and seconded the amended motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened at I :30 p.m. with all three Commissioners present COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: The County Administrator briefed the Board on the following items: . Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Proposal for Port Hadlock Tri-Area Waste Water System, final design and land acquisition and the JeOCom E911 Tower Project . Calendar Coordination . Continued Planning for 20 II . Legislative Update Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2011 ~ ~ . Miscellaneous Items . Future Agenda Items LETTER OF SUPPORT: Oil Spill Ueanup Training: Commissioner Johnson moved to have the Chair sign a letter of support concerning oil spill cleanup training at the Makah Reservation. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a nnllT1i1T\OUS vote. LETTER re: Invitfltion to Join the Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Committee: Commissioner Johnson moved and Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion to approve a letter of invitation to each School District Superintendent in the County to seek their participation on the Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Committee. The motion carried by a nnanimous vote. Proposal/or Changes to the Commissioner Meeting Format: Philip Morley recommended that he, the Chair, and the Clerk of the Board meet with David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to make sure that the proposed changes to see if these are reasonable rules regarding time, place and manner and if the proposed structure of the meeting looks reasonable and defensible. After review with legal counsel a final draft would be brought back to the Board for discussion during the morning session of the Commissioners meeting. The Board agreed to have the Chair review this proposal with legal council. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved and Chairman Austin seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 3 :39 p.m until the next regularly scheduled meeting or properly noticed special meeting. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS << /iJt~: f''''' r:'.~>..-.~ Jo Austirl.;'Chair I . '" P Page 8