HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100719 - to include Hearing Comments re: Proposed DRAFT Ordinance relating to the Hearing Examiner System and Procedures for Processing Land Use Applications9S�IINV
MINUTES
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Regular Meeting — Monday, October 7, 2019, 9:00 a.m.
Jefferson County Courthouse — Commissioners' Chambers
1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Kate Dean called the meeting to order at the appointed time
in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Greg Brotherton.
NOTICE: Jefferson County's New Facebook Page: Central Services Director Mark
McCauley discussed the County's new social media presence and what type of content will be made
available on the County's Facebook page.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by
individuals in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions.
• Comment regarding code enforcement issue on Cleveland Street.
• Comment regarding code enforcement issue on Cleveland Street.
• Comment regarding code enforcement issue on Cleveland Street.
• Comment regarding activities at the Chimacum Grange, bicyclists needing to wear proper gear,
economics, and the Democratic Party.
• Comment regarding an article in the Seattle Times regarding farmers, dealing with conflict, and
an article in the Leader regarding the owner of a proposed shooting facility.
• Comment regarding a draft ordinance related to the Hearing Examiner System.
• Comment regarding a recent Growth Management Act (GMA) Hearings Board decision.
• Comment regarding a draft ordinance related to the Hearing Examiner System and request for
more information regarding Executive Sessions.
• Comment requesting the fiscal impact to Jefferson County if I976 passes and a request for more
information regarding Executive Sessions.
• Comment regarding shooting noise from the gun range in Port Townsend.
The Commissioners and County Administrator addressed comments and concerns raised during the
Public Comment Period.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Sullivan moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brotherton
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. AGREEMENT NO. WAJEFF 150009(1) re: Undie Road Relocation Project, Federal Lands
Access Program (FLAP) Funding Match, County Road No 150009 and 151009; In the Amount
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2019
of Amount of $312,422; Jefferson County Public Works; US Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands (WFL) Division
2. AGREEMENT NO. WAJEFF 134309(1) re: Oil City Road Engineering Assessment, Federal
Lands Access Program (FLAP) Funding Match, County Road No. 134309, M.P. 0.00 to M.P.
10.98; In the Amount of $39,017; Jefferson County Public Works; US Department of
Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands (WFL)
Division
3. AGREEMENT NO. 40120423 re: Jefferson County Transfer Station, Site Improvement; In the
Amount of $237,620; Jefferson County Public Works; Nordland Construction Northwest, Inc.
4. AGREEMENT NO. K3921 re: Prevention Programs Designed to Prevent or Delay the Misuse
and Abuse of Alcohol, Marijuana, Tobacco, and Other Drugs Among Youth Up to Age 18 and
Adults Ages 18-25; In the Amount of $354,595; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington
State Health Care Authority
5. AGREEMENT re: Infant Mental Health Mentorship; In the Amount of $2,450; Jefferson
County Public Health; Gina Veloni
6. AGREEMENT re: To Study the Feasibility Of Expanding the Existing Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) and Jeffcom Office Space Currently Located at the Jefferson County Corrections
Center; In the Amount of $7,800; Jefferson County Central Services; Casey and DeChant
Architects (CDA), LLC
7. FINAL SHORT PLAT APPROVAL re: Oak Hills Short Plat, SUB 16-00024/MLA16-00092,
To Divide 19.81 Acres into Three Lots, Located at 2088 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA
98339, between Oak Bay Road and Liberty Street; Applicant, Tukey Investments, LLC.
8. MINUTES re: Regular Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2019
9. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated October 2, 2019 Totaling $1,264.36
(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.)
PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming the Week of October 6, 2019 as Mental Health
Awareness Week: National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Member Val Phimister briefed the
Board on NAMI Activities, goals and upcoming events. After all three commissioners read aloud the
proclamation, Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve a the proclamation proclaiming the Week of
October 6, 2019 as Mental Health Awareness Week. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: 2019 Third Quarter Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various
County Departments: County Administrator Philip Morley and Central Services Director Mark
McCauley reviewed the requests for third quarter budget appropriations. After review, Chair Dean
opened the hearing for public testimony. Tom Thiersch provided testimony.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair Dean closed the public hearing. Director McCauley explained a
change to correct a line item on Fund 127. In response to public testimony, he stated that ER&R's
request for a "Nissan Leaf' should be changed to a "Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)" so that the
department can choose a vehicle that makes the most sense. This change will be made on the
appropriation and transfer page.
After deliberation, Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 51-19 re: Third
Quarter Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments. Commissioner Brotherton
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2019
The meeting was recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:40 a.m. with all three
Commissioners present.
HEARING re: Proposed DRAFT Ordinance Relating to the Hearing Examiner
System and Procedures for Processing Land Use Applications: Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney Philip Hunsucker, Department of Community Development Director Patty Charnas,
Environmental Health Director Stuart Whitford and Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Austin Watkins
briefed the Board on the proposed ordinance.
Chair Dean opened the hearing for public testimony. Ron Rimple, Kathleen Waldron and Carol Gonella
provided testimony. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Dean closed the oral testimony portion of the
hearing. After deliberation on the issue, Commissioner Brotherton moved to extend the deadline for
receiving written public testimony to October 11, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. Commissioner Sullivan seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 11:15 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. Chair Dean announced that the Executive Session will be held from 11:28 a.m. to 12:13 p.m.
with the County Administrator, Prosecuting Attorney, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Civil
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Department of Community Development Director and Environmental
Health Director regarding Attorney -Client Privilege, Actual Litigation under exemption RCW
42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board resumed the regular meeting at
12:13 p.m. Chair Dean announced that the Board will be extending the Executive Session from
12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting
at 12:30 p.m.
The meeting was recessed at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m. with all three
Commissioners present.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Continued: Chair Dean announced that the Executive
Session will be continued from 1:34 p.m. to 2:04 p.m. with the County Administrator, Prosecuting
Attorney, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Department of
Community Development Director and Environmental Health Director regarding Attorney -Client
Privilege, Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public
Meetings Act. The Board resumed the regular meeting at 2:04 p.m. Chair Dean announced that the
Board will be extending the Executive Session from 2:05 p.m. to 2:35 p.m. The Board resumed the
regular meeting at 2:35 p.m. Chair Dean announced that the Board will be extending the Executive
Session from 2:37 p.m. to 2:52 p.m. The Board resumed the regular meeting at 2:52 p.m. Chair Dean
announced that the Board will be extending the Executive Session from 3:02 p.m. to 3:12 p.m. The
Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 3:12 p.m.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip
Morley reviewed the following with the Board.
• Topics to discuss
• Affordable housing
• JeffCOM
• Complete Count/Census; coordinated effort
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2019
• Closed Session; to be scheduled
• HB 1406
• Washington Counties Risk Pool; increase in rates
• ADDITIONAL BUSINESS re: Marbeled Murrelet: Commissioner Brotherton moved to
approve authorizing a payment of $2,400 to WSAC for a Marbeled Murrelet Economic Impact
Study. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
• Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC); proposed tourism study
• ADDITIONAL BUSINESS re: Renaming of a Creek and Mountain: Commissioner
Brotherton stated that he received an email from Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)'s Committee on Geographic Names which stated that residents in the vicinity
of Chicken Coop Road, near the border between Jefferson County and Clallam County, have
requested changing the name of a creek and a mountain to Misty Creek and Misty Mountain.
After discussion, Commissioner Brotherton moved to send a reply email back to DNR in support
of the residents' request to rename the landmarks, as long as there are no objections from other
interested individuals. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
• Razor clam harvesting on the West End
• Air Force EIS
• NOAA; proposed expansion of ORCA habitat designation
• Calendar Coordination and Miscellaneous Items
• West End Community Outreach Meeting
• Commissioners' Briefing Session
COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners reviewed recent
meetings they attended.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Brotherton moved to adjourn the
meeting at 4:24 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed.
Commis,si�SuH van seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
C
JEFFERSON COUNTY
s BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SEAL:',-
L
,r # ""`'V mM a Trey, Kate De , Chair
ATTEST:
Caroli Gallaway, CkC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
4
��Y1Y1J T2S�I�b��, (C�l �%►jCrjc-�
Testimony for hearing on Dua pLkr
se or oauery eieuric venae kocv) — vcL. /, LV17
Ak ii
A 'J'
Brand Bolt
f, Tesla Model 3
Manufacturer
South Korea (LG) car and
Japan (Nissan)
USA (Tesla)
battery ("Chevy' badge)
Chinese battery
Panasonic battery (NV)
Assembled in MI
Assembled in TN
BUILT in Fremont CA
Price with Level2+
$37,608
S = $29,320
$38,990
charging capability
S+ = $34,510
$47,990 (long range)
Range
238 miles
151 miles (S)
240 miles
226 miles (+)
310 miles (long range)
Battery
60 kWh
40 / 62 kWh
75 / 100 kWh
Drive
Front
Front
4WD (dual motor)
Safety
5 -star NHTSA
Not rated
5 -star NHTSA
Cost to drive 100
$3.12
$3.40
$2.80
miles (efficiency)
Range / charging:
Olympia is a 200+ mile round-trip, and a round trip to the West End is about 250 miles; recharging options are
limited at those places (at least until Tesla finishes installing their pending Supercharger fast -charging stations,
which deliver an 80% charge in less than 45 minutes, in Olympia and Forks). Fast chargers ("Level 3") require
major PUD infrastructure, so they will be in short supply for a while. Level 2 chargers are much more common,
but they can only provide about 20 or 30 miles of range per hour.
Ideally, a person using the EV car should be able to complete their day's round-trip without having to locate a
charger either at their destination or in-between. 240 mile range is barely enough; 310 mile range is needed.
Cost to operate:
A major cost-saving reason for being able to complete a round-trip without charging en -route is that the cost
of charging varies greatly depending on where, and when, it's done.
Presumably, the county's BEVs will be recharged at the courthouse or other county facility, "fueled" -up each
night and ready for use.
Jefferson PUD (BPA power) will soon have new meters and will be able to institute time -of -day rates, which
will significantly reduce the cost of overnight charging locally (at the courthouse, et al). PSE power (King,
Kitsap, Pierce, Thurston, counties) uses 60% fossil fuel, in conflict with the county's Climate Action Plan.
The county's electricity rate from Jefferson PUD is $.1007 per kWh. Public chargers cost up to 2 or 3 times as
much (unless there is a free one at the destination); stopping mid -route is too time-consuming unless it's at a
Level 3 charger.
At $.10 per kWh, a BEV costs about 3 cents per mile for "fuel". Over a typical 15,000 mile year, that's about
$450. If charged elsewhere, that cost could go up to $900 or more.
Getting the vehicle with the longest possible range will save thousands of dollars of electricity cost over the
life of the vehicle Oust by charging locally. This will more than offset any difference in initial purchase price.
Buy local power, buy USA -made, buy Tesla.
/s/ Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County
Please publish: September 11, 18, 25, 2019, and October 2, 2019
Bill: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
Account: 15830
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
ON A PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:15
a.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers of the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820
Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA for the purpose of taking oral and written testimony
regarding an Ordinance which, if enacted, will repeal the existing hearing examiner system and
replace it with a uniform hearing examiner system and enact procedural improvements for
processing land use applications. The sections of the proposed ordinance are:
The Ordinance proposes to repeal the followings sections of the Jefferson County Code:
18.05.080 Hearing Examiner
18.05.085 Hearing examiner rules of procedure.
18.40.300 Procedures for public hearings.
18.40.310 Reconsideration.
The Ordinance proposes to amend the following sections of the Jefferson County Code:
12.10.060 Department of community development — Duties.
18.10.010 A definitions.
18.10.030 C definitions.
18.10.080 H definitions.
18.10.160 P definitions.
18.40.040 Project permit applications framework.
18.40.080 Exemptions from project permit processing.
18.40.150 Public notice — Generally.
18.40.170 Notice of application — Time of issuance.
18.40.180 Notice of application — SEPA exempt projects.
18.40.190 Notice of application — Contents.
18.40.280 Hearing examiner review and decision (Type III decisions and appeals of Type 11
decisions).
18.40.320 Final decision.
18.40.330 Administrative appeals.
18.40.390 Judicial appeals.
18.40.810 Appeals.
The Ordinance proposes to add the following sections of the Jefferson County Code:
2.30.010 Purpose.
2.30.020 Office Created.
2.30.030 Definitions.
2.30.040 Examiner — Qualifications.
2.30.050 Selection of Examiner.
2.30.060 Examiner — Conflict of Interest and Freedom from Improper Influence.
2.30.070 Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
2.30.080 Examiner — Powers and Duties.
2.30.090 Procedures for Hearings.
2.30.100 Appeals of Administrative Decisions to the Examiner.
2.30.110 Departmental Reports to the Examiner.
2.30.120 Examiner's Decision.
2.30.130 Finality and Appeal of Examiner's Decision.
2.30.140 Suspension, Revocation, or Modification of a Decision, Approval, or Permit
2.30.150 Conflicts with Other More Specific Provisions.
2.30.160 Severability.
18.40.310 Expiration of Applications.
18.40.320 Vesting of Applications.
18.40.325 Suspension, Revocation, or Modification of Permits.
In addition to the October 7, 2019 Public Hearing, written testimony may be submitted from
September 11, 2019 and until the close of the public hearing on October 7, 2019, addressed to
the BoCC at P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or by email at
jeffboccgco.jefferson.wa.us unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners.
The public may view the text the proposed draft ordinance and appendices on-line at
http://test.co Jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExtemal/0/fol/2092626/Rowl.aspx or in-person at the
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner's Office located at 1820 Jefferson Street, Port
Townsend, WA 98368.
Signed this 3`d ay of September 2019
Kate Deign, Chair
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Julie Shannon
49as 11VA + 1 w� ...•t::fit 1
From: Kate Dean
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:12 PM
To: Julie Shannon
Subject: FW: Draft of HE Procedures, Exh A & B
Attachments: 9-28-19 Redraft of HE Rules.docx; ATT00001.htm; 9-28-19 Redraft of HE Rules.pdf;
ATT00002.htm
From: Carol Gonnella
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:12:13 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; Patty Charnas; Brenda And Ron
Cc: Kathleen Waldron; Patricia Earnest; vigoanderson; Victoria Galanti
Subject: Draft of HE Procedures, Exh A & B
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners:
Ron Rempel and I have been working on the drafts of Appendix A, Chapter 2.30, Hearing Examiner, and Appendix B, Jefferson
County Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure which were provided to us by Austin Watkins in the Prosecuting Attorneys
Office. We are attaching a WORD document showing our proposed edits in red. We are also attaching a pdf version with our
edits in case a person reviewing does not have tracking.
Although we still believe that the gold standard for protecting residents in rural residential areas from marijuana facilities is a
change in the law, you have refused our request to put this issue on your 2019 docket. We are hopeful you will place it on the
2020 docket. Until the law can be changed, we hope that the attachments, with our suggested changes, will provide a road -map
both for county departments and for the hearing examiner in conducting administrative hearings.
We appreciate your review of our suggestions and look forward to working with you to create procedures that protect both
applicants and your affected citizenry in all matters to be adjudicated in an administrative hearing before a hearing examiner.
You have assured us in the meetings we had with you on August 20 and August 28 that you will provide notice to us of all
public hearings reviewing these documents. We look forward to hearing from you.
Warm regards, Ron Rempel and Carol Gonnella
Appendix A
Chapter 2.30 HEARING EXAMINER
2.30.040 Examiner — Qualifications.
The examiner shall have such training or experience as will qualify
the examiner to conduct administrative or quasi-judicial hearings
utilizing land use and other regulatory codes. The examiner must
have expertise and experience in land use planning and should
shall have knowledge or experience in at least one of the following
areas: environmental sciences, law, public administration,
architecture, economics or engineering.
2.30.070 Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
(1) Initial Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. Initial Hearing
Examiner Rules of Procedure shall be adopted by the board
of county commissioners with Chapter 2.30 JCC. ❑
(2) Amendment of Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. The
examiner is delegated authority to amend non -substantive
portions of the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure
pursuant to this section. Within 5 days after adoption or
amendment of any Hearing Examiner Rule of Procedure, the
examiner shall transmit a copy of the public rule or
amendment to the clerk of the board of county
commissioners for county commission review and possible
action. The Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure or
amendment shall remain in effect unless rejected or modified
by a motion of the board of county commissioners within 30
days of transmission to the clerk of the board of county
commissioners. The examiner shall incorporate any such
rejection or modification within 10 days after adoption of the
motion of the board of county commissioners. ❑
2.30.080 Examiner — Powers and Duties.
_(3) The examiner shall receive and examine available relevant
information, including environmental documents, conduct
hearings, cause preparation of the official record, prepare and
enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue
recommendations to the board of county commissioners for
road vacations under Chapter 12.10 JCC (non- land use
hearing). ❑For any conditional use permit (CUP) application,
the examiner shall also receive and examine the department's
evaluation of CUP approval criteria contained in JCC
19140 530
2.30.110 Departmental Reports to the Examiner.
When an application, appeal, or hearing is scheduled to be heard
by the examiner, the department shall prepare a departmental
report summarizing the facts involved and the specific facts that
support iff-the department's findings and recommendations.
2.30.120 Examiner's Decision.
_(6) The examiner has the authority to impose conditions that
have a nexus to the county's interest and are roughly
proportional to the impacts of the notice, order, permit,
decision, determination, or other action being considered by
the examiner. ❑
(7) Before making a finding in favor of any CUP -:g -i , the .
Formatted: Font: (Defauk) Times New Roman, 16 pt
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5", Space After: 12 pt,
Line spacing: At least 18 pt, Bulleted + Level: 1 +
Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5", No widow/orphan
control, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian
text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and
numbers, Tab stops: 0.15", Left + 0.5", Left
examiner must find that the CUP is consistent with JCC
18.40.530 and identifty he specific evidence upon which that
determination was based.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Centered, No bullets or numbering
APPENDIX B ❑
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RULES OF. Formatted: Centered
PROCEDURE 9/10/2019
1.7 Disclosure and Availability of Records
(a) The decision of the examiner, once issued, is a public
record and shall be made available for public review.
(b) The examiner is authorized to certify or authenticate
those documents accepted into the record (including the
department's evaluation of a condtional use permit
(CUP) pplication's consistency with JCC 18.40.530)
on any matter before the examiner. r
. 2.1 General Rules
(aa,The examiner shall have sole authority over the scheduling of
hearings within its jurisdiction. A department requesting initial
hearing dates shall send a request to the examiner's office,
who shall confirm requests. If a hearing date is rejected, the
examiner's office shall provide the department with additional
dates. More than one hearing may be scheduled for a particular
date, if, in the opinion of the examiner, it is reasonable to
expect that two or more hearings could be heard on that date.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 16 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment:
Left + Aligned at: 0.13" + Indent at: 0.38"
Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent. Left: 0.38"
(b) Upon establishment of the date for the hearing notice of the Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... +Start at: 1 +Alignment:
date shall be provided to all principal parties and all parties of Left + Aligned at: 0.13" + Indent at: 0.36"
J
record. There must be a minimum of 30 days between the Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 16 pt
notice and the date of the hearipg Formatted: Font (Default) Times New Roman, 16 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
(cb) A department shall notify the examiner's office if it
anticipates a large volume of cases, or cases requiring
multiple hearing dates. The examiner may reschedule
hearings if the volume of hearings, reconsiderations, or
clarifications exceeds the examiner's capacity. ❑
(de) After a hearing date is confirmed by the examiner's office, a
department may request to cancel or reschedule the hearing.
The examiner's office shall make best efforts to
accommodate a cancellation or rescheduling. _:.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
2.3 Notice Requirements
(a) All notice, time requirement, and methods of
notification shall be consistent with Chapter 2.30 JCC,
in addition to other applicable provisions of the JCC
and Washington law. ❑
(b) A declaration attesting to the notice given of the
hearing, including dates and places of publication,
persons and addresses noticed, and lists of addresses for
owners of property in the vicinity adjaeent prope y
ownefs shall be part of the record for each case. In the
case of CUP's a liberal interpretation of "vicinity" shall
be used in fulfilling this requirement.
4.2 Departmental Reports
Departments shall prepare reports for cases under review by the
examiner. Departmental reports shall be made publicly available at
least 14 days prior to a Special Hearing. Reports shall
be made publicly available at least 30 days prior to a Hearings.
Departmental reports include, but are not limited to the following
materials:
_(a) -Hearings.
i. Summarize the nature of the case before the examiner; ❑
ii. The name and address of subject property, applicable zoning,
and other relevant facts; ❑
iii. State and apply the basic applicable laws, regulations, and
policies (including relevant Growth Management Act
provisions, Comprehensive Plan goals and policies,
applicable provisions of the JCC, Unified Development Code
interpretations, etc.) to the case; ❑
iv. In-depth fact -based analysis of the proposal (supported by
applicable scientific and engineering data) compared to the
applicable laws, regulations, and policies; ❑
. 5.2 Responsibilities of County Staff
Formatted: Undedine
County staff shall provide a departmental staff report • - Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
consistent with the provisions of Rule 4.2, provide a location
for hearings, provide recording equipment at hearings,
provide notice of hearings, present materials at hearings, and
provide testimony and documentation relevant to hearings. -
Prior to the hearing county staff shall be accessible to all Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19"
parties of record, and shall provide both substantive and
procedural assistance (to whom`'??`to both the applicant and
the parties of record in in
preparation for the hearing.-;
. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
5.5 Responsibilities of the Examiner The examiner shall
preside over the hearings. The examiner shall have all of
authorities and duties as granted to the examiner under
Washington and Jefferson County law. The examiner shall
have all powers necessary to that end, including the
following:
(a) To administer oaths and affirmations;
(b) To issue subpoenas; F.
(c) To rule upon offers of proof and receive evidence;,
(d) To rule upon the accuracy and validity of department
prepared reports and analyses prepared pursuant to 4.2❑
(ed) To regulate the course of the hearings, and the conduct
of the parties and their agents; ❑
(fe) To hold pre -hearing conferences, simplification of the
issues, or any other proper purpose;
(gf) To require briefs on legal issues;
(hg) To consider and rule upon all procedural and other
motions appropriate to the hearings;
(jh) To make and file recommendations or decisions; and,
Gi) To avoid unnecessary delays and to maintain order. _
5.14 Evidence ❑
0) Burden of Proof and Standard of Review.,
The moving party shall have the burden of proof as to the
material factual issues, except where applicable code
provision, state law, or Washington common law provides
otherwise. Unless indicated otherwise by the applicable
substantive law or below, the burden efof proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence and the burden is on the
moving party. Recommendation(s) in any department report
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times, 12 pt
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Fornatted: Font: (Default) Times, 12 pt
Fornatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.31"
or made by county staff shall not modify or shift this burden
of proof. --
6.5 Reconsideration
(a) An aggrieved party may file a written request for
reconsideration with the examiner's office within 10
days of the issuance of the examiner's decision. Any
request shall be provided to the examiner, the county
and all parties of record.- Reconsideration may not be
sought for the examiner's recommendations to the
board of county commissioners. Reconsideration is
limited to one per hearing and one per aggrieved party
or group. If the examiner receives a reconsideration
request from multiple aggrieved parties or groups, the
examiner shall consolidate the issues to one
reconsideration. The grounds for seeking
reconsideration shall be limited to the following: (1) the
examiner exceeded their jurisdiction; (2) the examiner
failed to follow the applicable procedure in reaching a
decision; (3) the examiner committed an error of law or
misinterpreted the applicable policy, regulation, or law;
(4) the examiner's findings, conclusions, or conditions
are not supported by the record; and, (5) newly
discovered evidence alleged as material to the
examiner's decision which could not reasonably have
been produced at the hearing. ❑
6.7 Appeals of Decisions u
The examiner's decision on all matters, excluding
recommendations to the board of county commissioners, is final
and conclusive after reconsideration or clarification periods, unless
appealed. Reconsideration or clarification is not required to appeal
a decision. All decisions of the examiner shall be appealable to a
court of competent jurisdiction consistent with applicable state
Formatted: Underline
law, such as Chapter 36.70C RCW (Land Use Petition Act) or
Chapter 7.16 RCW (Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition),
except appeals of certain shoreline decisions The decision of the
examiner on matters under Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master
Program) may be appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board in
accordance with Chapter 90.58 RCW (Shoreline Management Act)
or other applicable state law. Notice of appeal shall be provided to
the examiner, the county and to all parties of record at time of
filing.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 16 pt
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Appendix A
Chapter 2.30 HEARING EXAMINER
2.30.040 Examiner — Qualifications.
The examiner shall have such training or experience as will qualify
the examiner to conduct administrative or quasi-judicial hearings
utilizing land use and other regulatory codes. The examiner must
have expertise and experience in land use planning and should
shall have knowledge or experience in at least one of the following
areas: environmental sciences, law, public administration,
architecture, economics or engineering.
2.30.070 Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
(1) Initial Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. Initial Hearing
Examiner Rules of Procedure shall be adopted by the board
of county commissioners with Chapter 2.30 JCC.
(2) Amendment of Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. The
examiner is delegated authority to amend non -substantive
portions of the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure
pursuant to this section. Within 5 days after adoption or
amendment of any Hearing Examiner Rule of Procedure, the
examiner shall transmit a copy of the public rule or
amendment to the clerk of the board of county
commissioners for county commission review and possible
action. The Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure or
amendment shall remain in effect unless rejected or modified
by a motion of the board of county commissioners within 30
days of transmission to the clerk of the board of county
commissioners. The examiner shall incorporate any such
rejection or modification within 10 days after adoption of the
motion of the board of county commissioners.
2.30.080 Examiner — Powers and Duties.
(3) The examiner shall receive and examine available relevant
information, including environmental documents, conduct
hearings, cause preparation of the official record, prepare and
enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue
recommendations to the board of county commissioners for
road vacations under Chapter 12.10 JCC (non- land use
hearing). For any conditional use permit (CUP) application,
the examiner shall also receive and examine the department's
evaluation of CUP approval criteria contained in JCC
18.40.530.
2.30.110 Departmental Reports to the Examiner.
When an application, appeal, or hearing is scheduled to be heard
by the examiner, the department shall prepare a departmental
report summarizing the facts involved and the specific facts ,that
support in -the department's findings and recommendations.
2.30.120 Examiner's Decision.
_(6) The examiner has the authority to impose conditions that
have a nexus to the county's interest and are roughly
proportional to the impacts of the notice, order, permit,
decision, determination, or other action being considered by
the examiner.
7) Before makingappheatie
_a_fi_nding in _favor of any CUP _ the
examiner must find that the CUP is consistent with JCC
18.40.530 and identify the specific evidence upon which that
determination was based.
APPENDIX B
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RULES OF
PROCEDURE 9/10/2019
1.7 Disclosure and Availability of Records
(a) The decision of the examiner, once issued, is a public
record and shall be made available for public review.
(b) The examiner is authorized to certify or authenticate
those documents accepted into the record (including the
department's evaluation of a coildtional use permit
(CUP) application's consistency with JCC 18.40.53.0)
on any matter before the examiner.
2.1 General Rules
(a )The examiner shall have sole authority over the scheduling of
hearings within its jurisdiction. A department requesting initial
hearing dates shall send a request to the examiner's office,
who shall confirm requests. If a hearing date is rejected, the
examiner's office shall provide the department with additional
dates. More than one hearing may be scheduled for a particular
date, if, in the opinion of the examiner, it is reasonable to
expect that two or more hearings could be heard on that date.
N_ Upon establishment of the date for the hearing, notice of the
date shall be provided to all principal parties and all parties of
record. There must be a minimum of 30 days between the
notice and the date of the hearing.
(cls) A department shall notify the examiner's office if it
anticipates a large volume of cases, or cases requiring
multiple hearing dates. The examiner may reschedule
hearings if the volume of hearings, reconsiderations, or
clarifications exceeds the examiner's capacity.
(de) After a hearing date is confirmed by the examiner's office, a
department may request to cancel or reschedule the hearing.
The examiner's office shall make best efforts to
accommodate a cancellation or rescheduling.
2.3 Notice Requirements
(a) All notice, time requirement, and methods of
notification shall be consistent with Chapter 2.30 JCC,
in addition to other applicable provisions of the JCC
and Washington law.
(b) A declaration attesting to the notice given of the
hearing, including dates and places of publication,
persons and addresses noticed, and lists of addresses for
owners of property in the vicinity_an-t fepeft-y
&vN,nef s -shall be part of the record for each case. _In the
case of CUP's a liberal interpretation of "vicinity" shall
be used in fulfilling this requirement.
4.2 Departmental Reports
Departments shall prepare reports for cases under review by the
examiner. Departmental reports shall be made publicly available at
least 14 days prior to a Special Hearing. Reports shall
be made publicly available at least 30 days prior to a Hearing -days.
Departmental reports include, but are not limited to the following
materials:
(a) -Hearings.
i. Summarize the nature of the case before the examiner;
ii. The name and address of subject property, applicable zoning,
and other relevant facts;
iii. State and apply the basic applicable laws, regulations, and
policies (including relevant Growth Management Act
provisions, Comprehensive Plan goals and policies,
applicable provisions of the JCC, Unified Development Code
interpretations, etc.) to the case;
iv. In-depth fact -based analysis of the proposal (supported by
applicable scientific and engineering data) compared to the
applicable laws, regulations, and policies;
5.2 Responsibilities of County Staff
County staff shall provide a departmental staff report
consistent with the provisions of Rule 4.2, provide a location
for hearings, provide recording equipment at hearings,
provide notice of hearings, present materials at hearings, and
provide testimony and documentation relevant to hearings.
Prior to the hearing, countystaff shall be accessible to all
parties of record, and shall provide both substantive and
procedural assistance.. to both the applicant and
the parties of record ' in
preparation for the_hearing_
5.5 Responsibilities of the Examiner The examiner shall preside
over the hearings. The examiner shall have all of authorities
and duties as granted to the examiner under Washington and
Jefferson County law. The examiner shall have all powers
necessary to that end, including the following:
(a) To administer oaths and affirmations;
(b) To issue subpoenas;
(c) To rule upon offers of proof and receive evidence;
d To rule upon the accuracy andyalidit oy f department
prepared reports and analyses prepared pursuant to 4.2
(ed) To regulate the course of the hearings, and the conduct
of the parties and their agents;
(fe) To hold pre -hearing conferences, simplification of the
issues, or any other proper purpose;
(g f) To require briefs on legal issues;
(hg) To consider and rule upon all procedural and other
motions appropriate to the hearings;
(Ih) To make and file recommendations or decisions; and,
Oi) To avoid unnecessary delays and to maintain order.
5.14 Evidence
(j) Burden of Proof and Standard of Review.
The moving party shall have the burden of proof as to the
material factual issues, except where applicable code
provision, state law, or Washington common law provides
otherwise. Unless indicated otherwise by the applicable
substantive law or below, the burden ofof proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence and the burden is on the
moving party. Recommendation(s) in any department report
or made by county staff shall not modify or shift this burden
of proof.-
6.5 Reconsideration
(a) An aggrieved party may file a written request for
reconsideration with the examiner's office within 10
days of the issuance of the examiner's decision. Any
request shall be provided to the examiner, the county
and all parties of record.- Reconsideration may not be
sought for the examiner's recommendations to the
board of county commissioners. Reconsideration is
limited to one per hearing and one per aggrieved party
or group. If the examiner receives a reconsideration
request from multiple aggrieved parties or groups, the
examiner shall consolidate the issues to one
reconsideration. The grounds for seeking
reconsideration shall be limited to the following: (1) the
examiner exceeded their jurisdiction; (2) the examiner
failed to follow the applicable procedure in reaching a
decision; (3) the examiner committed an error of law or
misinterpreted the applicable policy, regulation, or law;
(4) the examiner's findings, conclusions, or conditions
are not supported by the record; and, (5) newly
discovered evidence alleged as material to the
examiner's decision which could not reasonably have
been produced at the hearing.
6.7 Appeals of Decisions
The examiner's decision on all matters, excluding
recommendations to the board of county commissioners, is final
and conclusive after reconsideration or clarification periods, unless
appealed. Reconsideration or clarification is not required to appeal
a decision. All decisions of the examiner shall be appealable to a
court of competent jurisdiction consistent with applicable state
law, such as Chapter 36.70C RCW (Land Use Petition Act) or
Chapter 7.16 RCW (Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition),
except appeals of certain shoreline decisions The decision of the
examiner on matters under Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master
Program) may be appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board in
accordance with Chapter 90.58 RCW (Shoreline Management Act)
or other applicable state law. Notice of m)peal shall be provided to
tic examiner, the county and to all parties of record at time of
file.. - -
From: David Alvarez <alvarez@olympus.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2019 1:19 PM
To: jeffbocc; Philip Hunsucker; Philip Morley
Subject: Hearing Examiner code and procedures
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hit the wrong button and just sent a meaningless message. Sorry.
Hello to all the Helpful Employees of the Lower Level. That was clever.
All the work looks really good.
Two tiny comments.
One I ask if 2.30 is explicit enough about what is the measuring date for the appeals.
I see that you revised the definition of calendar days in 18.05 but I wonder if there should be some reference to
18.05 definitions in 2.30
Also perhaps you should drop the reference to the common-law writs, Ch. 7.16 RCW because nothing in 2.30
is going to be subject to writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
For example a hearing about junk vehicles is not subject to LUPA, but might be subject to the Admin.
Procedures Act (Ch. 34.05) as an "appeal of an agency decision."
That would mean a 30 day appeal period.
I say the junk vehicle appeal is not a LUPA matter because it is not a permitting decision. You might want to
add in the APA citation.
Hope the BoCC adopts this good work and gives Phil H. and the stakeholders a big thank you.
David Alvarez, admiring all this work from his home.....
a Virus -free. www.avast.com
1
jeffbocc
From: David Alvarez <alvarez@olympus.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2019 1:09 PM
To: jeffbocc; Philip Hunsucker
Subject: Hearing Examiner code and procedures
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
From: Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2019 9:03 PM
To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; Patty Charnas; Austin Watkins;
James Kennedy
Subject: Written Response re: Hearing Examiner Procedures, Exhibits A & B
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners:
We are now entering a third year of us asking for
the County's assistance in protecting the homes and
quality of life of Jefferson County citizens who
reside in rural residential zoning areas. Several of
us were before you again on Monday, October 7,
2019, where you allowed us to have our three
minutes and thereafter precluded us from being
allowed to say anything. It is incredibly
frustrating. Our only recourse is to schedule
individual meetings with you so we can actually
have a conversation. It takes up your valuable time
and it takes up ours as well.
At a BOCC hearing on June 17, 2019, Austin
Watkins of the PAO told you and those of us in
attendance that the PAO would be
creating documents (a new hearing examiner code,
rules of procedure, and JCC amendments)
addressing the following regarding the county's
protocol in all hearing examiner cases:
Materials going to all parties
What goes into notice
Recommend a way to guide both the
applicant and the citizens
At our individual meetings with you on August 20
(with David and Philip) and on August 29 (with
Greg and Patty) you asked us to be patient, as these
new documents being created by the PAO were to
be the panacea to address the concerns we have had
about the lack of county cooperation and lack of
due process that we experienced in the last two
administrative hearings of Austin Smith (aka:
Olympus Gardens). These new documents were to
make it a far more fair process to those affected
citizens which would include adequate notice, open
access to documents and county staff, an
opportunity to adequately prepare
for any hearings and a written rationale of DCD's
decisions.
I reached out to James Kennedy and Austin
Watkins in the PAO, asking them about these new
documents and requesting that the issues of 1)
notice to affected citizens, 2)accessibility of
documents and DCD staff by affected citizens and
3) written criteria analysis by DCD staff to be
included in the documents being drafted. I received
an email back from Austin Watkins on September
4, 2019 stating in pertinent part "...the policy
direction comes from the county departments and
county administrator, with legislative input and
approval from the Board of County
Commissioners." This is how we feel:
• You point to the PAO as the county
department that will protect us by drafting
the due process provisions into these new
documents
• The PAO points to you to make these due
process provisions in the documents to
protect us
We did receive the new documents mid September
and after review, determined THEY DO NOT
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. On September
26, 2019, Ron Rempel and I (after hours of us
working together) submitted recommended changes
to both Exhibit B, Hearing Examiner Rules of
Procedure and Exhibit A, Chapter 2.30, Hearing
Examiner. We felt we would try to be team players
and submit only a few changes in an attempt to get
the documents completed rather than just be
complainers. Thus we only made five rather small
changes in the 13 pages of Exhibit A and ten
relatively small changes in the 24 pages of Exhibit
B. In listening to Austin Watkins at the 10-7
hearing, I do not think the PAO even looked at our
proposed changes. None were incorporated into the
drafts submitted to you.
We now have our individual meetings scheduled
with each of you on the morning of October 15. We
have requested that Mr. Morley also be present at
those meetings. To keep the meetings as short as
possible, we are submitting questions about the
documents we would like for you to answer at the
meeting:
What are the notice requirements? Do you
feel they are sufficient for affected citizens
to adequately prepare of a complicated
hearing, for example, a CUP application of a
marijuana facility that may require
scientific, engineering, and other experts to
study the issues and prepare to testify at the
hearing?
What access do affected citizens have to
both county documents and county staff in
preparation for the administrative hearings?
How is the county protecting its citizens so
no other persons need go through what the
islanders of Marrowstone went through? As
David Sullivan stated on February 26, 2019,
regarding the two hearings of Austin
Smith: "The DCD let us down and we are
ultimately responsible for that. I apologize
for the system not working." Your citizens
in Coyle are presently facing the same thing
that the Marrowstone residents faced. How
are you protecting them?
What is the burden of proof both for the
applicant and the affected citizens in the
administrative hearing? Do the
recommendations of the county to the
hearing examiner (approval or denial) affect
that burden of proof?
We look forward to the meetings with you and to
hearing your responses to the above questions.
Thank you and warm regards, Carol Gonnella
On Sep 26, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Carol
Gonnella
<carolgonnellagarnail.com> wrote:
Dear Board of County
Commissioners:
Ron Rempel and I have been working on
the drafts of Appendix A, Chapter 2.30,
Hearing Examiner, and Appendix B,
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Rules
of Procedure which were provided to us
by Austin Watkins in the
Prosecuting Attorneys Office. We are
attaching a WORD document showing our
proposed edits in red. We are also
attaching a pdf version with our edits in
case a person reviewing does not have
tracking.
Although we still believe that the gold
standard for protecting residents in rural
residential areas from marijuana facilities
is a change in the law, you have refused
our request to put this issue on your 2019
docket. We are hopeful you will place it
on the 2020 docket. Until the law can be
changed, we hope that the attachments,
with our suggested changes, will provide a
road -map both for county departments and
for the hearing examiner in
conducting administrative hearings.
We appreciate your review of our
suggestions and look forward to working
with you to create procedures that protect
both applicants and your affected citizenry
in all matters to be adjudicated in an
administrative hearing before a hearing
examiner.
You have assured us in the meetings we
had with you on August 20 and August 28
that you will provide notice to us of all
public hearings reviewing these
documents. We look forward to hearing
from you.
Warm regards, Ron Rempel and Carol
Gonnella
<9-28-19 Redraft of HE Rules.docx>
<9-28-19 Redraft of HE Rules.pdf>
Julie S annon
From:
Kate Dean
Sent:
Friday, October 11, 2019 12:50 PM
To:
Julie Shannon
Subject:
FW: Hearing Examiner Concerns
From: Kathleen Waldron
qkFAP1NG*4P4F,
Sent: Friday, October 11, 201912:4953 PM (UTC-o8:oo) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: David Sullivan; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley
Cc: Carol Gonnella; rrempel2Qa msn.com; Patricia Earnest; Vigo & Paula Anderson
Subject: Hearing Examiner Concerns
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Kate, David, Greg and Phil -
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Hearing Examiner discussion that was on Monday, October 7, 2019.
Carol Gonnella, Ron Rempel & I are each writing separate letters, & ask you to respond to them in our appointments
with you on October 15.
My questions are the following:
1. What has changed in 3 years to protect rural residential property from marijuana industrial sites?
2. How will the Hearing Examiner changes help us?
3. Will the CUP process be transparent & available to all?
4. Will the CUP process require the rationale & documentation for the approval or disapproval for ALL 13 CUP
conditions, & will it be part of the Public Record? We need to trust that county laws are being followed, & the Hearing
Examiner also needs to have this information.
5. Can there be simple "1,2,3 Steps" with Timelines" written in lay language, for both the CUP process & the Hearing
Examiner process?
6. Will you provide funding in the 202o Budget & support for a 2020 County Docket request for a marijuana zoning
review in Jefferson County?
Thank you for your time & your responses. Sincerely,
Kathleen Waldron
5o Beach Drive, Nordland WA 98358
CC �Occ
"�
G
ief o -Pc
HFQRIhI J�
From:
RON <RREMPEL2@msn.com>
Sent:
Friday, October 11, 2019 2:15 PM
To:
jeffbocc; Greg Brotherton; Kate Dean
Cc:
Philip Morley; Patty Charnas; Carol Gonnella
Subject:
BoCC Hearing Examiner hearing - Appendix A and Appendix B
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Commissioners
As a resident of Jefferson County I am very concerned about various aspects of the Jefferson County Code (JCC) administered by its
departments and amendments thereto. I look at it from the perspective of my 40 years of public service with an organization that had
both the responsibility to develop regulations and administer those regulations for the benefit of the public. I also had the
responsibility to reviewed repots and regulations prepared by my staff. As part of the review process, I always expected staff to be
clear and straight -forward when they presented new regulations or regulation modifications and to clearly and factually articulate why
a new regulation was needed or why one needed amending. I often asked for supporting evidence and specific facts and data and
expected it to be accurate and factual.
At the hearing last Monday, several parts of the presentation and comments by the PAO representatives seemed a bit off and
potentially misleading at least to the public. Their presentation also appeared to utilize methods often used in sales presentations such
as the use of red Xs to indicate something that they consider bad and green checkmarks to indicate good rather than just providing an
unbiased presentation and showing proposed changes, both deletions and additions. Even more confusing was the use of a green
checkmark under the Existing Code column by "Authorized rules of procedure, subject to BoCC approval with a corresponding
section in the Proposed Code column also with a green checkmark but stating "Authorization for [changes to] rules of procedure,
subject to BoCC rejection or modification. The slide implied that what is being retained from the existing code is being inserted into
the proposed code but with just slightly altered wording. While the wording may only be slightly altered, the change is significant in
multiple ways.
The precise wording in the proposed revised code section 2.30.070 (2) states "... The examiner is delegated authority to amend the
Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure pursuant to this section. Within S days after adoption or amendment of any Hearing Examiner
Rule of Procedure, the examiner shall transmit a copy of the public rule or amendment to the clerk of the board of county
commissioner for county commission review and possible action (emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure or
amendment shall remain in effect unless rejected or modified by a motion of the board of county commissioners within 30 days of the
transmission to the clerk of the board of county commissioners. The examiner shall incorporate any such rejection or modification
within 10 days after adoption of the motion of the board of county commissioners. "
This section is clearly worded assume that a change in the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure (HERP) does not require board of
commissioner approval. Changes to the HERP are in full effect immediately and stay in effect unless rejected or modified by the
BoCC. During the hearing, the BoCC may have been mislead on this issue during the PAO presentation (green checkmark indicating a
section of the existing rule would remain) and in PAO response to a commissioner question. The PAO stated that changes to the
HERP would be submitted to the BoCC to approve, reject or modify (see BoCC hearing recording at time point 2.11.22). The
proposed code does not require changes to the HERP to be approved by the BoCC and in fact leaves any changes in effect unless
2.07.48 of the hearing recording " when the hearing examiner makes a change to the HERP. Since a change can be made with no
notice to the public, as is the case since the BoCC doesn't have to approve a change change, it would not be agendized. It was
inaccurate to say it is like a consent calendar item, it is not. Consent calendar items are actions that the Board in considering for
approval. How will the public know a change has been made by the hearing examiner before it automatically becomes final after 35
days unless there is a required approval action by the BoCC?
In addition to the response to BoCC questions on this topic, the PAO stated the proposed wording was need to make minor changes
like adding or deleting a comma, implying that they would be de minimis in nature. This is misleading since there are no sideboards
regarding what types of changes the examiner could make to the HERP. To accommodate the stated concerns about a missing comma,
etc. is exactly why we proposed adding "non -substantive portions of'to the first sentence of 2.30.070(2). It accomplishes what the
PAO said needed to be accomplished without a total delegation of legislative authority to the quasi-judicial authority of the examiner.
Just to be clear, while Appendix A, Chapter 2.3 is an administrative section of the JCC, it is a delegation of the BoCC's quasi judicial
powers which should be guarded closely by the JCC, an elected body responsible to the residents of Jefferson County. The JCC should
not give an open-ended delegation of their powers (whether they be legislative or quasi-judicial) to an administrative official that can
change the rules whenever they desire.
The presentation also utilized the "band wagon" argument for why Appendix A and B are correctly written. At multiple places during
the hearing, the BoCC was told that the proposed Appendix A and B were patterned after the relevant codes in King and Snohomish
and to some extent Kitsap County. While some sections were lifted almost verbatim from other county's documents, those sections
were not terribly important sections and extremely relevant (from a process perspective) sections from afore mentioned county codes
were not included in Appendix A or B. For example, in the Snohomish County Code (SCC), there is a provision for Exceptions to
Rules- SCC Chapter 2, 1.7 that states
"In the event than an unanticipated situation arises which does not lend itself to full , literal interpretation with a rule, the examiner
reserves the right to exercise discretion to address such circumstances"
This language could be incorporated into Appendix A, although our proposed wording makes better sense for circumstances that
would likely occur in Jefferson County. King County code does not include a provision for the hearing examiner to change the code
nor does Kitsap County. All three counties have kept there hearing examiner rules within their commissioner approved codes. King
County has delegated modification of some statutes to departments but the departments are required to go through a full rule making
process.
Both King and Snohomish Counties examiner rules include wording that details what has to be included in a staff report. What they
require is consistent with our proposal to include references to JCC 18.40.530. If PAO claims it utilizing King, Kitsap and Snohomish
counties as examples of how Jefferson County should word key sections of Appendix A and B, using our proposed wording changes
should be adopted. Even the PAO's office grudging acknowledged that references to JCC 18.40.530 could help, but then stated they
think their proposed language might be good enough.
Another lesson you might want to take for the other counties is to create distinct sections of Appendix A and B that address land use
matters and "other matters" It would actually make the appendices easier to read and understand and allow for specific differences
relating to matters when hearing examiner process is utilized.
The PAO also may have misinterpreted what JCC Section 18 says about what the hearing examiner currently has a responsibility to
do. The PAO stated that the current code "requires hearing examiner to make sure all 13 criteria are met".BOCC Hearing Oct 7,
2019 at 2.09.25
This requirement is not in the current code and recent hearing examiner decisions in Jefferson County do not include findings that all
13 criteria have been met let alone any references to the specific evidence demonstrating that they have been met. Again, this missing
requirement is exactly why our proposed changes would require that the 13 specific findings be made and supported by the evidence
in the DCD staff report.
The Snohomish county rules require "detailed findings as to the conformance of an application with adopted laws and policies,
including consistency determinations required by SCC 30.70.100." Appendix B could be partially rewritten to use the same wording
"detailed findings as to the conformance of an application with adopted laws and policies, including consistency determinations
required by JCC 18.40.530"
Since Jefferson County says it is patterning Appendix A and B upon King, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties, the critical parts of their
Hearing Examiner Rules need to be incorporated.
Thank you and best regards, Ron Rempel