Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 SircelyPlease forward to the commission: letter and description CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Chair Nilssen, Planning Commissioners and Staff, Thank you to all my fellow planning commissioners for your willingness to reconsider the draft Eco-ADU proposal again this year. I am grateful that planning commission members and department staff have reviewed my proposal to the extent that its intent is clear. Each time we discuss this proposal, I can sense incremental progress, and I’d like everyone to know how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness, kind words and thoughtful critiques. Attached is a section-by-section description describing each of the ten sections in the Eco-ADU proposal. Please keep the following suggestions mind when reading through the proposal description: • I consider this proposal to be just one of many potential solutions to the affordable housing crisis in our county, solutions which are congruent with our vision and our county’s rural character. All proposals which rise to a level of urgency should be considered in detail, including those which the department identified as ‘urgent’ last year. --- • The recently enacted Critical Areas Ordinance contains specific language which should be considered alongside the Eco-ADU proposal, and it may be possible that elements of the CAO framework can be usefully applied. Specifically, the administration of independent verification may be adaptable since one primary critique of the Eco-ADU proposal has been that a volunteer citizen oversight board would be burdensome. If the CAO language is less burdensome, then perhaps we should consider whether a similar approach might work within the Eco-ADU framework. A metaphor for this could be: if it’s too much work to set up a local version of the National Organic Standards Board to set policy and provide ongoing review, then perhaps we should pursue something closer to the CAO approach, closer to the process of organic certification. There are specific elements in our new Critical Areas Ordinance Appendix A which appear to be potentially applicable to the Eco-ADU proposal. Here are a few of the sections with examples of what might be considered relevant text: 18.22.700 Purpose 18.22.710 Resource Concerns 18.22.730 Protection Standards “(1) Performance Standards. Producers shall submit a critical areas checklist and supporting documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate the following performance standards are met due to the nature of the proposal as well as installed or scheduled conservation practices… “ “(3) Structures (b) The Jefferson County conservation district is available to assist with completion of the critical areas checklist and in the development of conservation plans approved through the NRCS. A producer may also work with other farm assistance agencies.” 18.22.840 Monitoring and Adaptive Management “Jefferson County shall develop a cooperative monitoring program with producers, conservation district and farm assistance agency staff based on the conservation practices and performance standards of approved…” 18.22.850 Compliance --- • There exists a Community Housing draft document, a result of internal discussions within the department, which contains several ideas worth considering relative to the Eco-ADU proposal. Specifically, the CH document contains terms, titles, and insightful approaches to density classifications which closely mirror the intent in the Eco-ADU draft. Perhaps most challenging of all for the Eco-ADU proposal are the classifications of rural density, which the CH document addresses in detail: “This type of housing is not defined under the UDC, but is a successful living arrangement/facility in countries like Denmark and/or The Netherlands.” “This is commonly known as “community housing” and therefore we are calling this is a “Community Housing Unit”, which is one dwelling unit* in which there are multiple bedrooms (either internal or external satellite, like a tiny home or cabin) to be occupied by individuals, couples or small families, each with its own bathroom, where the kitchen facilities, living space, and land is shared by all occupants in common, on a permanent basis.” The discussion document explains how the CH concept is different from other existing definitions under the UDC, going through them all one-by-one, noting how and why a CH structure is not a co- housing or intentional community, not a single-family residence, nor a multi-family residence, not a duplex, nor a boarding house or a rooming house. The document continues: “The community housing ownership model can be like a condominium where individuals or families own, rent or lease their own unit, but share the rest of the facilities in common with other owners, likely under a cooperative, democratic governance model where all owners share equally in the maintenance of the building and land.” --- • I intend to collate the comments from last year, including any transcriptions from the hearing. Dozens of powerful comments were submitted on this proposal from everyday leaders in our community. Some offered to volunteer, and it was remarkable how each commenter honed in on a different angle, from the need for ecological restoration to the benefits of rural public transit, the dire need for rental affordability and the fact that working lands need working hands. Some interpreted the proposal within the context of environmental and climate justice issues. One artist’s tearful moment at the hearing was perhaps the most memorable of all. --- • Please let me know whether any of you would like to review any of the relevant text from Growth Management Hearings Board rulings which reference similar issues and concerns, such as rural housing proposals from Clallam, San Juan, and Skagit Counties and more. If helpful, we can also review text from the Growth Management Act which I believe specifically encourages us to do this work as a community. Matt Sircely 8/14/20 Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com> Fri 8/14/2020 4:38 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>; David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 2 attachments Eco-ADU proposal section-by-section.pdf; Sircely letter to PC - Aug 2020.pdf; Eco-ADU Proposal: Description of Contents 1. Conditional Use - This first section grants the department conditional discretionary authority over permitting, considered a very high degree of control over the issuance and revocation of permits. Section 1 outlines the basic formula for Eco-ADU allocation (unused ADU allocation + 300 sq ft), which then can be augmented by any of four incentives listed in Section 10 (15% bonus for each applied incentive). Parts c) and d) offer landowners within agricultural and forestry zones the opportunity to create “Agricultural Eco-ADU” and “Sustainable Forest Eco-ADU” projects. 2. Number - In addition to a given primary residence and any existing ADU, the proposal allows for a gradual increase in the number of detached units according to parcel size: - two extra detached units on 5 acres or less - five Eco-ADUs on parcels 6-10 acres, and - no more than six Eco-ADUs on larger parcels. For the largest parcels (40, 80, etc), the total size is proportionally limited (think small forest dwellings or agricultural housing on large working parcels). 3. Size of Eco-ADUs - Currently, maximum size is 1k sq ft. There is no minimum size for an Eco-ADU. 4. Composition and Compliance - Section 4 distinguishes EcoADUs from ordinary ADUs — not all amenities are required for each structure (i.e. separate kitchen and bath facilities are allowed). 5. Citizen Expert Review Panel - Section 5 sets up a body modeled after the planning commission to develop the specific criteria needed to govern Eco-ADU projects, including separate rules for agriculture and forestry zones. Also inspired by the volunteer National Organic Standards Board, the Review Panel is instructed to follow common practices: accepting public input according to public process, recognizing certain third-party verifications, and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest. Panel members are empowered to perform certain duties onsite, and there are also provisions to allow for third-party verifications, similar to aspects of the new CAO. Section 5.e establishes basic guidelines for the Review Panel’s ongoing adaptation of the organic rules and other standards, including the ability to allow or disallow specific materials, products and procedures on a case-by- case basis. Section 5.h addresses hazardous materials. Section 5.i addresses rural fire danger with proactive strategies. The panel is tasked with developing specific criteria to govern Eco-ADU agriculture and forestry Eco-ADU projects to achieve specific ecological goals, ensure public safety, and maintain rural character. 6. Stewardship Credits - This section allows adjacent landowners and sponsor organizations to enter into mutually beneficial agreements. Partnerships can facilitate preservation of greater tracts of land under ecologically stringent standards in conjunction with the provision of low-impact housing according to program guidelines. Neighborhood partnerships can benefit biodiversity, pollinators, watershed quality, regenerative forestry, sustainable agriculture and more, all while addressing the urgent need for dignified, low-impact housing both now and in the future. 7. Removable - The rules governing removal of toxic and synthetic materials during an Eco-ADU opt-out are generally consistent with the organic rules on the post-harvest removal of plastics and other potentially hazardous materials. The proposal allows natural foundations and structural elements to remain in place in the event of an Eco-ADU opt-out. 8. Revocation of Eco-ADU Conditional Discretionary Use Permit - This section establishes due process procedures to protect homeowners, including an appeals process for contesting permit revocation. If and when a department decision is rejected by a 2/3 vote of the Review Panel, members of the panel may advocate on behalf of a given project before a hearing examiner. 9. Eco-ADU Opt-out - Because the standard is designed to be ever-changing according to the dictates of public process, it’s critical that homeowners retain the option to opt-out at any time. This is similar to the organic rules and the opt-in/opt-out aspects of any voluntary standard. 10. Bonus Allocation - This section outlines four incentives, each of which boosts the Eco-ADU sq ft allocation by 15%: 1) elevated structures, 2) alternative energy, 3) living building components, and 4) a small primary residence (source of the idea was Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program). Planning Commissioners and Staff, Thank you to all my fellow planning commissioners for your willingness to reconsider the dra< Eco-ADU proposal again this year. I am grateful that planning commission members and department staff have reviewed my proposal to the extent that its intent is clear. Each Gme we discuss this proposal, I can sense incremental progress, and I’d like everyone to know how much I appreciate your thoughIulness, kind words and thoughIul criGques. AKached is a secGon-by-secGon descripGon describing each of the ten secGons in the Eco-ADU proposal. Please keep the following suggesGons mind when reading through the proposal descripGon: • I consider this proposal to be just one of many potenGal soluGons to the affordable housing crisis in our county, soluGons which are congruent with our vision and our county’s rural character. All proposals which rise to a level of urgency should be considered in detail, including those which the department idenGfied as ‘urgent’ last year. • The recently enacted CriGcal Areas Ordinance contains specific language which should be considered alongside the Eco-ADU proposal, and it may be possible that elements of the CAO framework can be usefully applied. Specifically, the administraGon of independent verificaGon may be adaptable since one primary criGque of the Eco-ADU proposal has been that a volunteer ciGzen oversight board would be burdensome. If the CAO language is less burdensome, then perhaps we should consider whether a similar approach might work within the Eco-ADU framework. A metaphor for this could be: if it’s too much work to set up a local version of the NaGonal Organic Standards Board to set policy and provide ongoing review, then perhaps we should pursue something closer to the CAO approach, closer to the process of organic cerGficaGon. There are specific elements in our new CriGcal Areas Ordinance Appendix A which appear to be potenGally applicable to the Eco-ADU proposal. Here are a few of the secGons with examples of what might be considered relevant text: 18.22.700 Purpose 18.22.710 Resource Concerns 18.22.730 ProtecGon Standards “(1) Performance Standards. Producers shall submit a criGcal areas checklist and supporGng documentaGon to the saGsfacGon of the Director to demonstrate the following performance standards are met due to the nature of the proposal as well as installed or scheduled conservaGon pracGces… “ “(3) Structures (b) The Jefferson County conservaGon district is available to assist with compleGon of the criGcal areas checklist and in the development of conservaGon plans approved through the NRCS. A producer may also work with other farm assistance agencies.” 18.22.840 Monitoring and AdapGve Management “Jefferson County shall develop a cooperaGve monitoring program with producers, conservaGon district and farm assistance agency staff based on the conservaGon pracGces and performance standards of approved…” 18.22.850 Compliance • There exists a Community Housing dra< document, a result of internal discussions within the department, which contains several ideas worth considering relaGve to the Eco-ADU proposal. Specifically, the CH document contains terms, Gtles, and insighIul approaches to density classificaGons which closely mirror the intent in the Eco-ADU dra<. Perhaps most challenging of all for the Eco-ADU proposal are the classificaGons of rural density, which the CH document addresses in detail: “This type of housing is not defined under the UDC, but is a successful living arrangement/facility in countries like Denmark and/or The Netherlands.” “This is commonly known as “community housing” and therefore we are calling this is a “Community Housing Unit”, which is one dwelling unit* in which there are mulGple bedrooms (either internal or external satellite, like a Gny home or cabin) to be occupied by individuals, couples or small families, each with its own bathroom, where the kitchen faciliGes, living space, and land is shared by all occupants in common, on a permanent basis.” The discussion document explains how the CH concept is different from other exisGng definiGons under the UDC, going through them all one-by-one, noGng how and why a CH structure is not a co-housing or intenGonal community, not a single-family residence, nor a mulG-family residence, not a duplex, nor a boarding house or a rooming house. The document conGnues: “The community housing ownership model can be like a condominium where individuals or families own, rent or lease their own unit, but share the rest of the faciliGes in common with other owners, likely under a cooperaGve, democraGc governance model where all owners share equally in the maintenance of the building and land.” • I intend to collate the comments from last year, including any transcripGons from the hearing. Dozens of powerful comments were submiKed on this proposal from everyday leaders in our community. Some offered to volunteer, and it was remarkable how each commenter honed in on a different angle, from the need for ecological restoraGon to the benefits of rural public transit, the dire need for rental affordability and the fact that working lands need working hands. Some interpreted the proposal within the context of environmental and climate jusGce issues. One arGst’s tearful moment at the hearing was perhaps the most memorable of all. • Please let me know whether any of you would like to review any of the relevant text from Growth Management Hearings Board rulings which reference similar issues and concerns, such as rural housing proposals from Clallam, San Juan, and Skagit CounGes and more. If helpful, we can also review text from the Growth Management Act which I believe specifically encourages us to do this work as a community. MaK Sircely 8/14/20 Re: Please forward to the commission: letter and description CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Also, it seems appropriate to include a third attachment: the reformatted original text of the proposal. Thanks again, Matt On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:38 PM Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com> wrote: Chair Nilssen, Planning Commissioners and Staff, Thank you to all my fellow planning commissioners for your willingness to reconsider the draft Eco-ADU proposal again this year. I am grateful that planning commission members and department staff have reviewed my proposal to the extent that its intent is clear. Each time we discuss this proposal, I can sense incremental progress, and I’d like everyone to know how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness, kind words and thoughtful critiques. Attached is a section-by-section description describing each of the ten sections in the Eco-ADU proposal. Please keep the following suggestions mind when reading through the proposal description: • I consider this proposal to be just one of many potential solutions to the affordable housing crisis in our county, solutions which are congruent with our vision and our county’s rural character. All proposals which rise to a level of urgency should be considered in detail, including those which the department identified as ‘urgent’ last year. --- • The recently enacted Critical Areas Ordinance contains specific language which should be considered alongside the Eco-ADU proposal, and it may be possible that elements of the CAO framework can be usefully applied. Specifically, the administration of independent verification may be adaptable since one primary critique of the Eco-ADU proposal has been that a volunteer citizen oversight board would be burdensome. If the CAO language is less burdensome, then perhaps we should consider whether a similar approach might work within the Eco-ADU framework. A metaphor for this could be: if it’s too much work to set up a local version of the National Organic Standards Board to set policy and provide ongoing review, then perhaps we should pursue something closer to the CAO approach, closer to the process of organic certification. There are specific elements in our new Critical Areas Ordinance Appendix A which appear to be potentially applicable to the Eco-ADU proposal. Here are a few of the sections with examples of what might be considered relevant text: 18.22.700 Purpose 18.22.710 Resource Concerns 18.22.730 Protection Standards “(1) Performance Standards. Producers shall submit a critical areas checklist and supporting documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate the following performance standards are met due to the nature of the proposal as well as installed or scheduled conservation practices… “ “(3) Structures (b) The Jefferson County conservation district is available to assist with completion of the critical areas checklist and in the development of conservation plans approved through the NRCS. A producer may also work with other farm assistance agencies.” 18.22.840 Monitoring and Adaptive Management “Jefferson County shall develop a cooperative monitoring program with producers, conservation district and farm assistance agency staff based on the conservation practices and performance standards of approved…” 18.22.850 Compliance --- • There exists a Community Housing draft document, a result of internal discussions within the department, which contains several ideas worth considering relative to the Eco-ADU proposal. Specifically, the CH document contains terms, titles, and insightful approaches to density classifications which closely mirror the intent in the Eco-ADU draft. Perhaps most challenging of all for the Eco- ADU proposal are the classifications of rural density, which the CH document addresses in detail: “This type of housing is not defined under the UDC, but is a successful living arrangement/facility in countries like Denmark and/or The Netherlands.” “This is commonly known as “community housing” and therefore we are calling this is a “Community Housing Unit”, which is one dwelling unit* in which there are multiple bedrooms (either internal or external satellite, like a tiny home or cabin) to be occupied by individuals, couples or small families, each with its own bathroom, where the kitchen facilities, living space, and land is shared by all occupants in common, on a permanent basis.” The discussion document explains how the CH concept is different from other existing definitions under the UDC, going through them all one-by-one, noting how and why a CH structure is not a co- housing or intentional community, not a single-family residence, nor a multi-family residence, not a duplex, nor a boarding house or a rooming house. The document continues: “The community housing ownership model can be like a condominium where individuals or families own, rent or lease their own unit, but share the rest of the facilities in common with other owners, likely under a cooperative, democratic governance model where all owners share equally in the maintenance of the building and land.” --- • I intend to collate the comments from last year, including any transcriptions from the hearing. Dozens of powerful comments were submitted on this proposal from everyday leaders in our community. Some offered to volunteer, and it was remarkable how each commenter honed in on a different angle, from the need for ecological restoration to the benefits of rural public transit, the dire need for rental affordability and the fact that working lands need working hands. Some interpreted the proposal within the context of environmental and climate justice issues. One artist’s tearful moment at the hearing was perhaps the most memorable of all. --- • Please let me know whether any of you would like to review any of the relevant text from Growth Management Hearings Board rulings which reference similar issues and concerns, such as rural housing proposals from Clallam, San Juan, and Skagit Counties and more. If helpful, we can also review text from the Growth Management Act which I believe specifically encourages us to do this work as a community. Matt Sircely 8/14/20 Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com> Fri 8/14/2020 6:21 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>; David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 1 attachment Eco-ADU draft text 2-27-19.pdf; Eco-ADU Draft Text Submitted to the Jeff Co WA Planning Commission text includes grammatical and formatting corrections Definitions: “Eco-ADU” - An Eco-ADU is an ADU approved for habitation under this section following the issuance of a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit by the Director. Eco-ADUs are limited to residential parcels of 5 acres or greater. All regulations as defined in section (cite) apply to Eco-ADUs except for the sixth provision. Eco-ADUs are not required to contain every amenity that a standard ADU is expected to contain, with exemptions subject to review by the Review Panel and the department. “Agricultural Eco-ADU” - An Eco-ADU project located in agricultural zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco-ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the maintenance of a farm plan. “Sustainable Forest Eco-ADU” - An Eco-ADU project located in forest zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco- ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the maintenance of a sustainable forestry plan. “Eco-ADU project” - A project comprised of one of the three types of Eco-ADUs. In this section, the word ‘project’ refers to an Eco-ADU project. “Citizen Expert Review Panel” - In this section, the term “Review Panel” shall refer to the Citizen Expert Review Panel. “Living Land Stewardship Standard” - The Living Land Stewardship Standard is also referenced within this section as “the standard”, “the guidelines” or the “Eco-ADU standard”. The voluntary standard intends to ameliorate four primary areas of concern with regard to allowed conventional construction techniques and lifestyle choices, and agricultural and forestry practices. The four primary areas of concern that are addressed by the standard are: 1) The presence and use of toxics and materials such as synthetic pest control products or synthetic fertilizers that are intended for outdoor use and/or storage outdoors. 2) Substantial disturbances of soil due to grading, roadbuilding, or erosion 3) The standard prohibits the siting of eco-ADUs in areas that would require the felling of large trees, and/or place residents in a location with a high probability of imminent tree fall; and 4) Eco-ADUs shall not be used as short-term rental units. “Stewardship Credit” - Land set aside in exchange in order to direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi-parcel clustered site plan (Conservation Village) may include, but are not required to include critical areas as currently defined by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Land set aside in exchange in order to direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi-parcel clustered site plan (Conservation Village) may include preservation of other natural and agricultural areas. “Conservation Village” - a multi-parcel clustered site plan which is able to achieve approvals from the Review Panel and the department. A Conservation Village is represented by a singular Project Lead. “Eco-ADU Project Lead” - The term “Eco-ADU Project Lead”, referred to in this section as “Project Lead”, is a designated sole point of contact and authoritative decision-making on behalf of a particular project. All Eco-ADU projects must identify a singular Project Lead. The Project Lead may be the property owner, and may also be a tenant or a representative of a sponsor organization, and must be designated as authorized to act on behalf of the project starting with initial consultations and continuing through and beyond all permitting procedures. The Project Lead may designate that a program tenant, representative of a sponsor organization, or a third party may alternately serve as Project Lead. The creation of an Eco-ADU shall be subject to the following requirements, which shall not be subject to variance. 1. Conditional Use a) Following initial consultations with the Review Panel and/or Director, all Eco-ADU applicants must attain a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit. b) Upon the granting of a permit, Eco-ADU project participants immediately receive an additional 300 square feet of ADU allocation in addition to the 1,250 sq ft limit established by the county, which together with any unused ADU allocation, can be combined and then divided into multiple detached ADUs appropriate for lot size and zoning criteria as defined in 2. c) Applicants located in AP-20 - Commercial Agriculture and AL-20 - Local Agriculture zones may apply for a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit to establish a “Agricultural Eco-ADU” project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this section, applicants must design, submit and pursue a credible farm plan to the review committee, which then determines whether to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to whether the conditional use permit should be approved or denied. It is not necessary for the Sustainable Forest Plan to include intent to engage in commercial timber harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any variance from the initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the Review Panel. Farm plans shall be limited to use of agricultural products and materials that are allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis. d) Applicants in RF-40 - Rural Forest, IF-20 - Inholding Forest, and CF-80 - Commercial Forest zones may apply for a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit to establish a “Sustainable Forest ADU” project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this section, applicants must design and submit a credible Sustainable Forestry Plan under the guidance of the review committee, which then determines whether to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to whether the conditional use permit should be approved or denied. It is not necessary for the Sustainable Forest Plan to include intent to engage in commercial timber harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any variance from the initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the Review Panel. Sustainable Forestry Plans shall be limited to use of agricultural and agroforestry products and materials that are allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis. 2. Number a) No more than 2 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels of 5 acres and less. b) No more than 5 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels between 6 and 10 acres. c) No more than six Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels between 10 and 20 acres in size. d) On parcels 20 acres and above, total Eco-ADU allocation shall be limited to 0.5% of the total surface area of the parcel. e) On parcels 40 acres and above, the total Eco-ADU allocation is limited to 0.2% of the total surface area of the parcel. 3. Size of Eco-ADUs An Eco-ADU must not exceed 1000 square feet, including any garage area. 4. Composition and Compliance a) The ADU may include facilities for cooking, living, sanitation, and sleeping, however unlike conventional ADUs, Eco- ADUs are not required to include every type of amenity, depending on the project goals, the needs and preferences of tenants, and the permissions granted by county departments in compliance with Jefferson County Code. b) The Review Panel may choose to assist applicants in the development of new systems and methods to satisfy requirements as set forth by county departments and the JCC while also meeting program requirements. 5. Citizen Expert Review Panel a) Members of a Citizen Expert Review Panel (Review Panel) shall establish and maintain an updated list of criteria that shall be defined as the “Living Land Stewardship Standard”. The standard shall be consistent with all the criteria listed in this section as well as all other county codes. b) The Board of County Commissioners shall select nine members members of the Review Panel for a term of two years, three from each district, appointed by the commissioner who represents the district in which the appointee resides. c) The Review Panel shall establish bylaws which shall be updated and approved annually by the membership. The goal of the Review Panel is to provide guidance, consultation and official recommendations to the department director. The director may instruct the Review Panel to answer questions or investigate and/or address concerns. d) The Review Panel is tasked with occasionally monitoring and advising opt-in Eco-ADU projects. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if the landowner objects, or if there are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the individual or organization performing the review is also free of potential conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review Panel and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable of carrying out the necessary tasks. e) Prohibited under the voluntary standard is the outdoor use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers and other nutrients of a synthetic nature or containing synthetic ingredients, unless allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis. f) Eco-ADU projects are subject to inspection by members of the Review Panel. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if the the landowner objects, or if there are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the individual or organization performing the review is also free of potential conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review Panel and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable of carrying out the necessary tasks. g) Program participants and sponsor organizations may choose to offer appropriate permissions to allow the Review Panel and/or a third-party review organization to physically sample onsite data for research and analysis. h) The Review Panel shall maintain clear guidelines for managing household hazardous waste and contained management of fluids and materials required for the operation and maintenance of ordinary household vehicles, and assess and mitigate the presence and/or probability of engine oil drips, for example from older vehicles or machinery. The Review Panel may require the operator and/or landowner to design, implement, and maintain a containment plan for any potentially hazardous materials that are allowed on site. i) The Review Panel shall consider fire danger as paramount, and ensure that each program participant receives a training in fire-preventative techniques and immediate response. The Review Panel shall encourage every tenant and program participant to maintain awareness of current local fire dangers and events, as well as develop a suite of techniques essential to wildfire prevention. At the Review Panel’s request, either as part of the initial application or during ongoing review procedures, that the Eco-ADU applicant must detail pathways of access for first responders and firefighters to all Eco-ADU dwellings and any areas considered by the Review Panel to be at high-risk of fire for any reason. 6. Stewardship Credits. Stewardship credits allow separate entities which willfully enter a mutual development agreement to create a single entity, known as a Conservation Village (CV). The Conservation Village must design, manage and maintain a site plan. Before any construction begins on a project involving Stewardship Credits from two or more adjoining parcels, there must be a binding legal agreement between the owners of all parcels involved, as well as any third parties acting as sponsor organizations. The allocation of Stewardship Credits must be negotiated by the Project Lead. Stewardship Credits shall not augment an Eco-ADU allocation by more than 75%. 7. Removable. All Eco-ADUs must be removable unless constructed from natural materials such as wood not treated with chemicals, stone, untreated metals and/or other non-synthetic materials. In the event of a permit revocation or a Project Lead choosing to opt- out of the program, all applicable buildings must be removed. Removal of slabs and footings is not required under such circumstances unless directed by the Review Panel or Director. 8. Revocation of Eco-ADU Conditional Discretionary Use Permit. The Director retains the authority under the conditional use permitting procedures to revoke a permit with or without the recommendation and consent of the Review Panel. Permit revocations shall be subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner. In the event of a dispute between the Review Panel and the Director where the Director opposes a recommendation from the Review Panel consisting of a vote of no less than two-thirds of a quorum, the Review Panel may choose to refer the case to an automatic appeal at no cost to applicant or project. The Review Panel may also designate one or more members to advocate for the applicant or project before the Hearing Examiner, but only with the consent of the Eco-ADU Project Lead or the Project Lead’s designee. 9. Eco-ADU Opt-out. In the event that an existing Eco-ADU Project Lead choses or decides to Opt-out of the Eco-ADU program, the Project Lead must coordinate the removal of all Eco-ADUs. 10. Bonus Allocation. a) Eco-ADU applicants may apply for additions to the Eco-ADU allocation. Project applicants and participants may calculate how much of their ADU allocation is unused at the time of application and add that number to the additional 300 square feet that are immediately allocated when a participant opts into the program. b) With permission from the Review Panel and Director, applicants and participants can choose to add to their allocation a bonus of 15% once they have demonstrated an intention and ability to meet criteria in one or all of four bonus categories: • Structure elevation (for example, pier blocks instead of a concrete slab) to allow the passage of wind, water and wildlife underneath the building. • Alternative energy installations excluding biomass energy generation. • Incorporating living building design components that aid biodiversity and ecosystem vitality as determined by the Review Panel. • A primary residence with a footprint of less than 1,800 square feet.