Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011402District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of January 14, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Dan Titterness were both present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes for the week of December 3,2001. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CO UNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles Saddler introduced Dave Christensen, Natural Resources Manager, who is developing an ordinance for the Conservation Futures Program based on King County's ordinance. He distributed a summary page of the criteria for selecting projects and explained that the committee reviewing the projects will use more specific criteria. Commissioner Titterness stated that he has concerns about the wording of the first item on the Preservation Criteria, "Preservation of lands that are threatened by development or resource extraction." Dave Christensen said that this wording is based on the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee's recommendation. Commissioner Titterness pointed out that this wording needs to specify "critical lands" because there is property throughout the County that is appropriate for development or resource extraction. Dave Christensen noted that the King County ordinance reserves a portion of the fund (defined as a percentage) as a set aside to address direct Board priorities. This wasn't discussed by the Advisory Committee. He asked if the Commissioners want a similar provision added to the proposed ordinance? He advised that 10% of fund is $15,000 per year which could be used for matching grant funds from other sources. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness agreed that there isn't enough funding right now to be setting funds aside. Commissioner Titterness asked that the first item under Preservation Criteria be deleted. Dave Christensen said that he will review the details behind the wording and make any changes that are necessary. Dave Christensen recommended that the Conservation Futures Program be administered by WSU Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 Cooperative Extension. The budget for the fund includes 10% for administration and the ordinance defines how the program will run. Commissioner Huntingford asked Extension Agent Katherine Baril if Cooperative Extension could add this work to their program list? Katherine Baril answered that it would allow them to hire a Water Quality Agent to staff the program. It would require a revision to the Memorandum of Agreement with WSU. Charles Saddler advised that this position would provide expertise and sidestep potential conflicts of interest because WSU wouldn't be supporting the purchase of any particular property. This is a secure on-going funding source that can be utilized to deal with water and land issues at Cooperative Extension. Katherine Baril pointed out that WSU administers the Conservation Futures Program in Island and Clallam Counties. Commissioner Huntingford asked what restrictions there are on how the Conservation Futures funds can be used? Charles Saddler advised that he is checking with the Prosecuting Attorney. Dave Christensen explained that Conservation Futures and Secure Rural Schools funds can be used together to acquire critical lands. Gary Rowe noted that once the property is acquired, costs for property management will need to be addressed. The proposed ordinance requires that a property management plan be submitted with all proposals for property acquisition Charles Saddler explained. Gary Rowe noted that the law requires the County to have a Countywide Property Management Plan in place. Commissioner Huntingford cautioned that the County needs to spend decreasing revenues on basic and mandated services and that would not include property management. Commissioner Wojt asked that the Board take action as soon as possible on whether Cooperative Extension will take over the management of the Fund because hiring details and a revised MOU will need to be worked out. Commissioner Titterness moved that staff initiate the transfer of the administration of the Conservation Futures Fund from the Natural Resources Department to Cooperative Extension. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion and added that a more appropriate time for this discussion would have been during the 2002 budget process. Chairman Wojt called for the vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: A question about the process for the Secure Rural Schools funding; the Tri Area is in debt $4 million to be paid over the next 40 years and the figures for proposed UGA infrastructure are overwhelming; what data and population figures did the Tri Area Planning Group use to arrive at the infrastructure figures?; the Tri Area has to operate as a business and can't continue to operate "in the red;" and right now many residents in the Tri Area are just trying to survive. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 moved to delete Item 15 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 08-02 re: Intent to Form an Emergency Services Communication District pursuant to RCW 82.14B.070; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 2. AGREEMENTS (9) re: 2002 Community Services Grant Funding; 1) Domestic Violence; 2) Brinnon Senior Organization; 3) Port Townsend Senior Association; 4) Conservation District; 5) Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; 6) Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP); 7) Economic Development Council; 8) Coyote Foundation; and 9) Jefferson County Fair Association 3. AGREEMENT re: 2002 Criminal Defense Services for Indigent Defendants; Clallam-Jefferson Public Defender 4. AGREEMENT re: 2002 Conflict Counsel Criminal Defense Services for Indigent Defendants; John Raymond 5. AGREEMENT re: 2002 Hearing Examiner Services; Irv Berteig 6. AGREEMENT re: Consolidated Juvenile Services Projects; At-Risk, Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative, Community Juvenile Accountability Act, and Chemical Dependency Disposition Alternative; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Division of Community Programs 7. AGREEMENT re: Professional Consultant Services for Land Use/Land Cover Mapping to Determine Habitat Conditions for Salmon Refugia in Jefferson County for Long Term Fisheries and Watershed Management; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Spatial Sciences & Imaging 8. AGREEMENT re: Professional Consulting Services for Community Outreach for the Developmental Disabilities Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Michelle Fogus 9. AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Professional Biological Services for identification of Salmonid Refugia in Eastern Jefferson County; Extending Term to July 31, 2002; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Watershed Ecology, LLC 10. AGREEMENT, Amendment #2 re: Professional Consulting Services for Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 Planning Unit; Extending Term to December 31, 2002; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Susan Gulick, Sound Resolutions 11 AGREEMENT, Supplemental #1 re: Provision of Recycle Drop-Box Collection and Recycle Center Processing Services; Jefferson County Public Works; Skookum, Inc. 12. AGREEMENT re: Emergency Road Repairs for 2002-2003, #XO1556; Jefferson County Public Works; Bruch and Bruch Construction 13 CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Asphalt Concrete for 2002 Maintenance Projects on Various County Roadways; Bids Accepted until 10:00 a.m., Monday, January 28, 2002 and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:05 a.m. in the County Commissioners' Chambers 14. Approve Standard Road Vacation Request; Portion of Grant Street in the Plat of Irondale Acre Tracts; William Galloway, Petitioner 15. DELETE Approve 2002 Organization Chart for the Department of Public Works 16. Appoint Person to Serve a Three (3) Year Term on the Jefferson County Substance Abuse Advisory Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 17. 18. Committee; Term Expires 1/14/05; Robert J. Mollerus, M.D. Appoint Person to Serve an Unexpired Three (3) Year Term on the Olympic Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council; Term Expires 4/21/03, Dr. Adrian Dronkert Appoint Two (2) Persons to Serve on the Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee (MRC): 1) Representing Marine Science Practitioners, Educators or Researchers, Varn Brooks, Term Expires 1/14/06; and 2) Representing District 2, David Jenkins, Term Expires 8/16/03 Public Works re: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; Review Telephone Survey Results: Jim Pearson, Public Works Department, introduced Tom Beckwith, the consultant for the project, who updated the Board on the survey results. Commissioner Huntingford asked what age groups were surveyed? Tom Beckwith explained that the voter registration lists were used to recruit 200 households from all areas of the County to participate in this survey. An information package was sent to these people and telephone interviews were conducted until100 surveys were completed. A thank you letter went out to all 200 participants and the people who weren't interviewed were encouraged to send in their survey. They contacted each household 3-5 times. The survey results include statistics and "verbatim" comments. With this type of survey the demographics reflect people of voting age that are established in the community and they usually get a fair representation of age, owner/renters, and people who have lived in the County for different lengths of time. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that 43% of the respondents were from the City of Port Townsend and there were more people in the 50-64 years age category than in any other. Tom Beckwith advised that the respondents were older residents and as a result the response is probably more conservative. Commissioner Huntingford questioned if this is a balanced representation because there were more responses from the north end of the County and these residents would benefit more from this plan. He feels there should have been more representation from the Commissioner Districts outside the City. The number of voters in each Commissioner District is equal, but the survey definitely favors the Quimper Peninsula. Tom Beckwith advised that they were surprised that there weren't many younger people responding, but this may have been because the survey was conducted during the holidays. Jim Pearson offered to do a breakdown by Commissioner District of the list of 200 residents who received surveys. Tom Beckwith explained that because the respondents were older there was an impact on the statistics, although 51% said they had used a recreation program within the last year. The questions that received high priority scores were: # 6 -- Before/after school child care/latch key programs # 7 -- Teen social, education, life safety activities # 9 - Aquatic instruction and recreation for all ages # 11 -- Physical conditioning and fitness classes for all ages Low priority was given to: # 10 -- On-water sailing and kayaking instruction for all ages Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 g 15 -- Arts and crafts instruction for all ages g 16 -- Drama and performing arts instruction for all ages g 17 -- Music and dance instruction and socials for all ages g 19 -- Skiing, hiking, and other outdoor events for all ages g 21 -- Skateboard and roller-blade instruction programs. He reviewed the balance of the results from the survey which supports priorities for youth and teens and being fiscally conservative. Financing by bonds was supported; increased taxes were not. In three weeks, they will bring financial strategies to the Board which reflect the priorities of the survey results. Charles Saddler asked why such a high percentage of respondents in the 50-64 age group rated teen needs so high? Tom Beckwith suggested that the respondents must feel that this age group needs attention. There was consistent support for teen programs and teen facilities. Charles Saddler then asked Tom Beckwith if a higher percentage of respondents in the 20-35 category had been involved, would there still have been high support for teens? Tom Beckwith answered that is usually the case. He advised that he will include the statistics from addition surveys received by mail in the next two weeks. PROCLAMATION re: Welcoming Home USS Carl Vinson Aircraft Carrier to Bremerton Homeport: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the proclamation welcoming home the USS Carl Vinson Aircraft Carrier to Bremerton. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Establishing a Cash Drawer for the Health and Human Services Department: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 09-02 establishing a cash box in the amount of $20 at the Health and Human Services Department. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Compliance Grievance; Grievance #13 & #14; Mark Rose: Chairman Wojt called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing on Grievances gl 3 and g14 filed by Mark Rose. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez explained that the same basic rules apply as in the previous hearing. Chairman Wojt read the rules: This is a grievance hearing that was requested by one or more citizens as they are allowed to do under the terms of the Community Development Block Grant funded by the Federal Government, managed by the State of Washington, and accepted by defferson County, in order to help move forward the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan for Planning Area ~11. The County Commissioners are sitting today as the governing body of defferson County to hear the grievances as they are permitted to do in the grievance process outlined by the State of Washington and agreed to by this County. This hearing may conclude today Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 or at a future date if the parties so agree upon another day. When this hearing concludes, either today or in the future, the County Commissioners then have 30 days to issue a written decision. The decision of the County Commissioners is final although the complaining party may have other legal avenues that he or she can pursue. The rules of evidence will not apply here although the County Commissioners will, and must, give credibifity andweight to the evidence as they see fit. The standard to be used by the County Commissioners in making their decision with respect to any particular grievance is whether the allegation of the complaining party has been supported by evidence that makes the allegation more fikely true than not true. Each party shall make its' presentation without interruption and shall have the opportunity to ask questions. Mark Rose stated that he appeared before the Board on October 22, 2001 with twelve grievances. The response from the County Commissioners showed that they did not take his grievances seriously which is what he expected. He first approached the County with his concerns in April, 2001 and was ignored. He submitted 147 pages documenting his concerns and feels he was very civil, logical, and deliberate in his presentation. He didn't expect the personal comments from Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness and he doesn't appreciate the comment about his mother taking his computer away or the comment that he is a process terrorist. He would like an apology. In response, Commissioner Titterness stated that he thinks a process terrorist is a person who continually brings forward complaints without merit. Mark Rose responded that it is his right to bring his concerns before the Board as part of the democratic process. He feels strongly that the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning process has not been open to all the people in the community. Commissioner Huntingford explained that his comment about the computer related to the number of E-mails that the Board received throughout the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning process. Many of the E-mails were personal affronts to individuals involved and responses to these messages. They had little to do with the actual process. Mark Rose replied that they were trying to get the Board's attention and get a response. Commissioner Huntingford answered that he feels the County has responded to Mark Rose regarding his concerns and grievances, but Mark Rose may not like the response because it didn't give him the results that he wanted. The County has continually tried to make sure that the public has been involved in the process and that legal requirements have been met. Commissioner Titterness added that because the Board did not consider Mark Rose's grievances pertinent to the subject doesn't mean that they weren't considered. At the first grievance hearing, Commissioner Titterness complimented Mark Rose because he suggested a proposed solution for each grievance. The fact that the Board didn't accept the proposed solutions doesn't mean that he wasn't heard. Mark Rose disagreed with the Board. He does not feel that there has been an adequate public process throughout the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning process. He does not think the Board has solicited public opinion from the environmental community and, in fact, he feels they have discouraged it. His complaints are about the lack of an open, public process. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 Mark Rose reported that on November 13, 2001, he received a letter from the Department of Community Development regarding compliance with the OCD grant. Their recommendations were: In the future the County shouM make extensive efforts to solicit a broad range of stakeholder input and participation in local planning groups to insure the integrity of the planning process. In the future the County shouM structure its local planning processes to allow for diverse input, buiM consensus, and appreciate local commitment and effort while providing objective, non-biased oversight if personal interests dominate the local planning activities. Mark Rose explained that Brinnon is a retirement community of 2,000 people, the majority of which are over the age of 58. In several surveys, the residents have indicated that they want the community to remain rural with services to benefit a retirement community. Brinnon has the most fragile ecosystem in the County, including spawning grounds for fish and shellfish. The Brinnon Sub-Area Plan is based on falsified information. The current plan would benefit a few landowners and the population figures do not indicate the need for dramatic rezoning. Building statistics were used to justify growth. School lunch statistics do not represent the poverty level of an area. Development would increase taxes and drive the poor out. The plan doesn't address living wage jobs or services to the retirement community and doesn't support a year round economy or plan for a community identity. He doesn't think the plan represents the wishes of the majority of the community because there were numerous comments in opposition to the plan at the public hearings. The community has become polarized. The County used the procedures in Planning Blue Book when the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning process began, but then discarded it when it was no longer convenient. He feels that the County has spent too much time and money to produce an illegal plan that is highly susceptible to successful appeals. The plan proposes a resort and golf course, doubling the commercial zone in the Brinnon flood plain, and development near a rare pond that is critical for saltwater habitat. The planning process did not include the Navy, with their submarine base in nearby waters, the Department ofFish and Wildlife, the Department of Public Works, the Tribes, other State agencies, biologists, or other interested parties. The Plan doesn't address capital facilities, human and environmental impacts, or other development opportunities that can occur as the result of the plan. The Commissioners hold the ultimate responsibility for what occurs in Brinnon and the damage that this process has done. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mark Rose to be more specific about the damage that has been done. Mark Rose replied that it has polarized Brinnon and pitted the residents against each other. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that Mark Rose's main complaint is that he does not like the Plan. Commissioner Huntingford added that much of the property that is being "rezoned" was "downzoned" when the commercial areas were tightlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mark Rose thinks that the planning process is to blame. People were abused so they didn't attend meetings. He feels that a small group of special interest people have forced the plan on the town. Commissioner Titterness quoted Mark Rose's comment that "the County has provided an illegal Plan." He Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 asked what Court or Board has determined that the Plan is illegal? Mark Rose answered that because the Plan has not been adopted yet, it has not been challenged. He clarified that, in his opinion, the Plan is illegal. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mark Rose about his comment that the County has not made efforts to contact other agencies for comment. It was Commissioner Huntingford's understanding that Staff did send letters to those agencies and they did not respond. They will have another opportunity to comment during the SEPA process. Mark Rose disagreed and added that the County received correspondence asking for a extension of the comment period because of the holidays. Josh Peters, Associate Planner, stated that Grievance #13 concerns lack of public participation in the planning process. The SEPA threshold determination was issued on December 12, 2001 and all the appropriate rules were followed concerning the comment period and the appeal period. A public meeting is scheduled in Brinnon on January 22 and several of the stakeholders that Mark Rose mentioned, including representatives from the Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Tribes have been personally invited. Josh Peters added that according to State law, a SEPA determination can be revised or withdrawn at any time before the plan is adopted. David Alvarez asked if Kirie Pedersen provided a list of stakeholders to DCD around June 15, 2001 ? Kirie Pedersen answered that she gave a partial list of stakeholders to DCD, but she was not sure of the date and thought it was much later in the year. David Alvarez noted that the representative from the Tribes, Ted Labbe, submitted at least two comment letters and one was sent in mid-summer. He added that it is his understanding that Ted Labbe indicated he would not be attending the meetings in Brinnon because it was too far to drive. Mark Rose stated that the Tribal representative and habitat biologists were denied access to the plan and involvement in the process while the plan was being developed. David Alvarez replied that County records indicate comments were received from the people that Mark Rose had indicated didn't have opportunities to comment. The public only had one week to review the plan before the public hearing. Mark Rose reiterated that the Tribes, the Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Department of Public Works all commented that they did not have adequate time and were not notified in a timely manner to allow them to give substantive comments on the Plan. He agreed with David Alvarez that they have all made comments and the final Plan has not been adopted. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 Chairman Wojt asked Josh Peters to address the concern that the Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group kept the public away by using intimidation techniques. Josh Peters explained that he came into the planning process after it was already established. His main role was to provide support and be a liaison between DCD and the Planning Group. Mark Rose and others voiced a lot of resentment about how the Planning Group conducted the meetings and made decisions. In general, there were public comment periods at every meeting and a community meeting was held. DCD's role was to provide professional planning guidance. There are two definite sides and it was difficult to be in the middle. Chairman Wojt said that he attended the first meeting when the Planning Group was formed. The instructions were to follow the procedures in the Blue Book. He also tried to make clear there had to be respect for all opinions during the process. Mark Rose contends that the public was actually deterred. Commissioner Wojt asked Josh Peters if he observed this? Josh Peters explained that there were different reactions to some public participants at different meetings. There were some meetings where Mark Rose and Kirie Pedersen had comments that were added to specific sections of the Plan and other meetings where their suggestions weren't acted on. David Alvarez interjected that the original comments of Ted Labbe, the Tribes' representative, were received on August 8, 2001. Commissioner Wojt asked Mark Rose how he would envision the planning process if it had been done the way he wanted? Mark Rose explained that he approached the Board with his concerns about the planning process in April, 2001. At that time they suggested that he read the Blue Book. After reading the Blue Book, he responded with a six page letter of recommendations. Planning guidelines need to be developed for sub-area planning groups. These groups need to be educated about the GMA and the Open Public Meetings Act. The Planning Commission should guide the group and meet with them every few months. The County can have a better result if guidelines are established. Chairman Wojt replied that in his opinion the Blue Book is the guide. Mark Rose answered that at the Tri Area Planning Group meetings, he was told that the Blue Book wasn't the guide. Commissioner Huntingford explained that at the first meeting in the Tri Area the participants were given the option to go by the Blue Book process or to be a working group and have staff do most of the work through the initial phase and then follow the Blue Book process in the next phase. The Tri Area Group chose to begin as a working group. Mark Rose disagreed and said that he thinks that the process was decided by the consultant before the Tri Area Group was convened. He doesn't think any guidelines were followed. Chairman Wojt asked if this discussion has been addressing Grievance #13? Mark Rose answered that this has just been a freeform discussion. Mark Rose went on to discuss Grievance #13. He reported that on October 17, 2001 at the public hearing in Brinnon, Kate Marsh stated that she (or others) altered the original basis for the CDBG grant funding by not addressing affordable housing. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the funding was used for a general planning process that included, but was not limited to, affordable housing. Mark Rose replied that the Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 County was allowed to do that under the conditions of the grant, but he feels that the County received the grant funding based on certain criteria and this criteria has not been met. Josh Peters said that a letter dated November 7, 2001 from Kaaren Roe, the CDBG Project Manager stated that during the initial review of the grant application, it was determined that the development of a sub-area plan would benefit LMI (low and moderate income) residents indirectly and data indicates that over half the Brinnon population is in this category. The sub-area plan will allow for future community improvements. OCD hopes these future improvements and projects will directly benefit LMI, although it is not a requirement of the planning grant. Mark Rose asked the Board to comment about the planning process and about the intentional altering of documents that allow the County to receive grant money. Commissioner Titterness asked if this is relevant to the complaint? David Alvarez explained that it is his understanding that the grant application went through several revisions before it was sent to OCD and Mark Rose did not see the final version. OCD approved the grant as it was submitted. The deletions that Mark Rose refers to occurred before the County signed off on the contract. Josh Peters stated that no one altered the contract for this sub-area planning process. Commissioner Titterness asked if Mark Rose was aware of this information prior to filing Grievance #13? David Alvarez answered that he had received all the information. Mark Rose stated that he disagreed with David Alvarez. He knew there were several versions of the grant, however, the criteria for attaining the grant didn't change. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mark Rose who altered the contract? Mark Rose replied that Kate Marsh gave public testimony to the Planning Commission that it was altered by the Planning Group. Commissioner Huntingford asked how they got access to the agreement? David Alvarez reiterated that any alterations were made before the County signed the agreement. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board will need to do more research on Grievance #13 and Commissioner Titterness added that they will respond in writing to Mark Rose within 30 days. Mark Rose went on to explain Grievance #14 which deals with the grievance procedure. The County's position is that the grievance procedure was in place the entire time and Mark Rose chose at what point he wanted to go on to the grievance hearing. Mark Rose believes that OCD wants the grievance procedure in place at the beginning of the contract and that the County should publicize it. He feels that he has had to force this grievance procedure. He asked that the Board publicize the grievance procedure relating to all Community Development Block Grants. Commissioner Huntingford answered that this is not an unreasonable request and he feels that in the future this can be done. David Alvarez asked if Mark Rose knows of any one else who would have filed a grievance? Jean Johnson, owner of Brinnon Store, stated that she does not like the way the planning process was handled. Eleanor Sather, owner of Whitney Gardens asked Linda Tudor, the Planning Group Chair, about affordable housing and she replied that it was redlining. Eleanor Sather has been involved in community planning in Brinnon for many years and said that the last planning project was very exclusive and information, such as meeting minutes, were not easily available to people who did not agree with the Planning Group. Josh Peters stated Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 14, 2002 minutes, were not easily available to people who did not agree with the Planning Group. Josh Peters stated that the minutes are public documents and have always been available. Chairman Wojt agreed that in the future the grievance procedure needs to be readily available to the public. Josh Peters said that this was also OCD's recommendation. Commissioner Huntingford added that the grievance procedure also needs to specify what issues can be grieved. In his opinion, the grievance process needs to deal with procedures and not whether someone disapproves of the results of the project. David Alvarez stated that Mark Rose will receive the Board's decision in writing on Grievance #13 and #14 within 30 days. The Chair closed the public hearing. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: : ' , ATTEST: "., '~ Loma Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board Dan Tittemess, Member Page 11