Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM090803 District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Judi Mackey County Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of September 8, 2003 Chairman Dan Tittemess called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Judi Mackey. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2003 and September 2, 2003 as presented. Commissioner Mackey seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator David Goldsmith reported on the following: · He met with Ann A vary ofthe EDC, and the managers from the City, the Port and the PUD to discuss ajoint strategy for encouraging economic development in the County. The intergovernmental meeting with Elected Officials from the County, the City, the Port and the PUD is scheduled on September 25 at the Courthouse. The Courthouse elevator project is scheduled for the month of October but there is some question about whether it will be finished in time for the Smith murder trial jury selection. The elevator work might have to be delayed until next year and there will be an added cost to the County if the project is postponed. He has been meeting with the Departments to review their budget requests for 2004 and has asked them to look at partnerships to increase revenues. Recreation and facilities within the City needs to be reviewed and creation of a metropolitan park district is still an option. He is going to put together a proposal for the City of Port Townsend about hiring and jointly managing a Building Official and they are also interested in a Code Compliance Officer. He would like to see these 2 positions funded from the fee structure. The workload of staff in long range planning continues to increase because of the Hearings Board appeals. DCD is putting together a list ofprojects and priorities for the Board to review. They may have to hire temporary staff or consultants to deal with some of the projects. · · · · · Page 1 '. Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 8, 2003 ::;'" · A property owner adjacent to Hicks Park has written a letter that the County is encroaching on his waterfront. David Goldsmith visited the site and suggested that a possible solution is to have the County and the property owner share the expense of a tidelands survey. The property owner has also complained that people from the park trespass on his beach and it was suggested that a fence be put up at the park's boundary. · The Departments are working on the issues that were brought up during the Board's walking tour of Shine. Public Works has responded and Al Scalf reported that the unauthorized buoys have been removed voluntarily by the owner. After all the information is received, it will be compiled into one document and sent out to interested Shine residents. · The Kala Point neighbors adj acent to Woodland Hills #2 have asked for more clarification about the open space buffer that was established on the boundary. The County has proposed that this buffer become an open space easement. · A request has been received from a group of citizens on Marrowstone Island to waive solid waste fees for a homeowner who took in a homeless woman. Other agencies in the area that help people on limited incomes do not handle this sort of situation and the County doesn't have a policy that addresses it. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: when the Board went on the walking tour of Shine, they said that they would have staff e-mail information to interested residents about their concerns and there may need to be some additions or changes to the e-mail addresses they received; in Thurston County, people can deal with their traffic violations via e-mail and not have to report in person to the Court which saves time and paper; there is a County sign on Shine Road about littering that needs to be updated because it says the fine is $10; Community Development Director Al Scalf and Associate Planner Greg Ballard will be doing a site visit of the proposed Pit to Pier location this week; the Hood Canal Coalition wants to form a committee that will follow along with the County's work on the Hearings Board compliance order on the Fred Hill mineral lands overlay designation. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete Item #4 and approve the balance ofthe Consent Agenda. Commissioner Mackey seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 50-03 re: Establishing Another Qui1cene Drop Box Station Cash Drawer 2. AGREEMENT NO. 0609-02-PA-009, Modification No.2 re: PAC Northwest Region Cooperative Fund Fish and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement; Extending Period of Performance to September 30, 2003; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Olympic National Forest 3. AGREEMENT NO. D32056D, Amendment No.1 re: Breast and Cervical Health Program (BCHP) Screening and Referral Services; Decreasing Funding Amount; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Seattle King County Public Health District Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 8, 2003 " 4. DELETE AGREEMENT NO. 134103J015 re: Private Stewardship Grant Program Funding for Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and Enhancement and Restoration Activities in the Steamboat Creek Watershed; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (See Item later in Minutes.) 5. Letter Requesting Continued Support for Olympic Coastal Corridor Visitor Center; Representative Norm Dicks AGREEMENT NO. 134103J015 re: Private Stewardship Grant Program Funding for Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and Enhancement and Restoration Activities in the Steamboat Creek Watershed; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: (Item #4 on the Consent Agenda.) Natural Resources Manager Dave Christensen explained that Rayonier approached the County about becoming the local governmental sponsor for this grant. He feels that his department can administer this grant for $2,500. It is a good project and a partnership that he would like to encourage with a large land owner who is working voluntarily on land conservation. Commissioner Huntingford stated his concerns about the responsibility oftaking on the contract and the increase in staffs workload. He moved to deny the contract with the Department ofFish and Wildlife Service. Chairman Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Community Development re: Discussion of Agriculture Lands: Associate Planner Josh Peters explained that the Washington Environmental Council appealed the Unified Development Code adopted in 2000 and a settlement agreement was negotiated. Earlier this year, the Board adopted amendments to the UDC that implemented the settlement agreement and the County is required to review designations, classification procedures, and development regulations for agricultural lands. The Board agreed to offer property owners interested in having their land designated as agricultural to "opt in" on a one time Comprehensive Plan amendment sponsored by the County. The Planning Commission formed an Agricultural Subcommittee which has recommended that this process be done in phases. Phase 1, to be accomplished this year, is to submit Comprehensive Plan amendments to simplify the agricultural lands designation and to finish up the action items listed in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In Phase 2, to be completed in 2004, the subcommittee will develop a UDC package to implement whatever is adopted by the Board this year. There would also be a second tier of outreach next year and a review ofthe list of the parcels of interested landowners against the criteria. The Planning Commission vote on this process was unanimous. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 8, 2003 Karen Driscoll, a planner and agricultural land owner, is working on this project through grant funding from the OCD. She was given 3 tasks: 1) to follow up on the settlement agreement with WEC regarding agriculture and critical area buffers and complete the action items in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) to review the County's policies, ordinances and maps that deal with agriculture, find inconsistencies, and propose amendments, and; 3) to review the County's policies and ordinances and recommend changes that are more supportive of agriculture for preservation of the land base as a business and still remain consistent to GMA policies, and protect the environment. She prepared a working matrix after reviewing all of the policies and ordinances. It included the GMA, the WAC, the GMA Hearing's Board decisions, the Open Space Tax program, the interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and Appendix G ofthe Comp Plan that is applicable to the UDC, the Shorelines Master Plan and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. She sent out 6,000 letters, rezone application forms, and surveys to property owners in the County who own more that 1 acre of land. Many people had questions, and over 100 people responded that were interested in commercial agriculture or were currently involved in it. She reviewed information from other counties and talked with staff from the State and the American Farmland Trust, a nationwide non-profit conservation organization dedicated to protecting the Nation's strategic agricultural resources. She drafted the proposed amendment to the language of the Comprehensive Plan and forwarded it to the Planning Commission's Agriculture Sub- committee who will forward it to the Planning Commission with their recommendation. She prepared information for the SEPA report that Josh Peters is developing. She has begun drafting proposed amendments to the UDC sections that deal with agriculture. She has prepared a draft letter to the landowners who responded, that the Comprehensive Plan amendment on their rezone has been postponed until next year. Her goal is to clarify and broaden the range of agricultural activities permitted without a land use permit based on the fundamental definition of "commercial agricultural activities." Certain activities at an appropriate scale and size are part of commercial farming, such as farm stands, on-farm retail sales of farm products, processing farm products into value-added commodities such as jams, ciders, cheese, wine, pickles and bottled milk. Farms often provide activities and experiences for the public such as farm tours, classes for children, hay rides, and pumpkin sales that are clearly agricultural in nature such as agro-tourism. The UDC language will be clear on the "right to farm" and related activities and also on the limits in place to prevent activities from growing beyond what is appropriate for agricultural lands. The only way to have a viable small farm today is to produce value-added products and do direct sales. Aquaculture has also been mentioned. The State staff is of the opinion that shoreline property that can sustain shellfish growth and harvesting should be designated the same way prime agricultural soils are designated and protected in the same way. There wasn't enough grant funding or time to do more research. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he is concerned about designating shoreline property. Josh Peters replied that aquaculture is a separate issue and is not part ofthe current process. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 8, 2003 " Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has concerns that not enough review has gone into dealing with buffers between agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive areas. This process is a great way to promote small agricultural businesses, but how small can the parcels be? And how will the "right to farm" provisions be dealt with on smaller parcels in more populated areas? Josh Peters answered that the Agriculture Subcommittee has been looking at farm size and a 2.5 acre farm may have more regulations than a 20 acre farm. He added that the changes to the UDC dealt with buffers on a voluntary basis and the results are ongoing and monitored. Public Works re: Petition to name a Private Road; Dilly-Dally Drive; Located Of/Smith Lane on the Dabob Peninsula in Quilcene; Kenneth Jaffee, Petitioner: Wendy Ward, Public Works Department stated that this is a unique name and staff recommends approval. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 51-03 naming a private road Dilly-Dally Drive. Commissioner Mackey seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Public Works re: Standard Road Vacation Request; Portion of East Moore Street in lrondale; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Petitioner: Wendy Ward explained that this road vacation has been requested to help facilitate the restoration ofthe Chimacum Creek Estuary. The County Engineer and the Hearing Examiner have recommended approval of the road vacation with conditions. The conditions may be difficult to meet within a year, as specified by the ordinance, and ifthe Board approves the vacation, they may want to stipulate a two year period to meet them. The Hearing Examiner didn't address compensation. The amount is up to the Board, but according to the ordinance, the State would pay half ofthe appraised value, or $5,500. Chairman Titterness stated that he thought there were specific regulations for road vacations adjacent to water. Wendy Ward answered that there is an exception to the State law, that if a public entity is requesting the vacation and it is for certain purposes that include recreation, it can be allowed. There is County property adjacent to the State property that is a proposed County park and access is an issue. Chairman Titterness asked if the County has an agreement with the State regarding public access to the water? County Engineer Bob Turpin replied that there is no agreement, and he would like to see the State work with the County on planning for parking and access. Paula Macrow, representing the North Olympic Salmon Coalition, reported that this spring they found juvenile Chinook salmon along the waterfront in the area. The proposal is strictly for salmon habitat restoration and there aren't funds to provide recreational facilities. Most restoration projects don't provide parking and restrooms. The County can work with the State on any agreements through the conditions of the Shoreline permitting process. Representative for the State Department ofFish and Wildlife, Bert Loomis, reiterated that this is a restoration project and no development is planned. In addition, the State would like to have conditions #1 and #2 ofthe Hearing Examiner's recommendation removed because they will be required to go through the Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 8, 2003 permitting process and the road is being vacated for the restoration project so there won't be any additional impervious surface, therefore, any stormwater drainage would be on the County property. The State does not want to commit to working with the County on a project they haven't seen, but they have offered to pay the full appraisal value of $11 ,000 for the vacated road. Bob Turpin said that the State can recommend an expedited shoreline review process that would not allow the County to address concerns about access, parking, and stormwater. Al Scalf, Director of Community Development, explained that if the State recommended an expedited process, the County would comply with their request. His understanding is that this project would not be eligible for an expedited permit process and a shoreline permit and SEP A are required. Commissioner Huntingford asked if it is possible to do the permitting on the County project and the State project at the same time? Bert Loomis replied that they have no idea about the County's timeframe on the park project. The County has the same concern with the State on the restoration project. Bert Loomis added that ifthey don't meet certain deadlines, they will lose their funding source and not be able to do the project. They need to know about the road vacation by September 15. The project is a top priority. Wendy Ward explained that, in their petition, the State said that the project would "create enormous recreational opportunities for the public and permanent public access to 1,800 feet of beach." This needs to be taken into consideration because if recreation isn't included, they don't meet the RCW to vacate the road leading to the water. Bert Loomis replied that there will be foot access for the public, but not a road because a restoration plan has very strict limitations. Chairman Titterness reviewed the conditions. The Board agrees with condition #1 regarding the shoreline permit. The State doesn't feel that they have the responsibility and the funding to follow through on condition #2. An alternative option was suggested to have the State pay the full appraisal amount. Per the ordinance, half of the money goes to the Road Fund and $5,500 would be available for State engineers to do a portion ofthe planning specified in condition #2 with the County's cooperation. Bert Loomis asked to see a conceptual plan of the County's project. The restoration money will only be available ifthe road vacation is done by the September 15. In order for the State to agree to reciprocity, they have to see a plan. Chairman Titterness proposed an addition to the language in condition #2 regarding the $5,500 for planning. The Board agreed to meet on Tuesday to continue the discussion after the new language is reviewed. The Next Day: Bert Loomis stated that the State needs to have a limit on the cost of mitigation that has been proposed in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. He pointed out that a standard shoreline permit (condition #1) will address all the issues raised by the County that are listed in condition #2. Commissioner Huntingford stated that there is a transition area between the County property and the State property that needs to be addressed and suggested ajoint shoreline permit because he is concerned about the impacts on both properties. Bert Loomis answered that it depends on the timing for both projects. The State can't commit to anything that is open ended and until they do more technical research on their project, the only commitment that they can make to the County is the $11,000 for the road vacation. He thinks that the State will commit to doing the full local shoreline permitting process, but the 2 projects need to be kept separate. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 8, 2003 '~.~"'<> ;þ. _"\'.~ 4;Í'_~Ii; N";"~~~"" Chairman Titterness noted that ifthe State has to come to the County for the shoreline permit, the issues that are in condition #2 will be addressed. If the State does not agree with the conditions of the permit, the permit won't be approved. Al Latham, Wild Olympic Salmon, stated that a joint development process probably wouldn't work, but an agreement about joint consulting may be an option. Bert Loomis explained that without a plan from the County, the State can't commit. David Goldsmith pointed out that the State has to meet the Hearing Examiner's conditions or the road vacation won't be approved. The Board went over the wording of a new condition that would require the State to obtain a shoreline permit issued by Jefferson County. The County Administrator will have the draft language to Bert Loomis by the end of this week for his meeting at the State on Monday, September 15. Public Works will have the road vacation resolution ready for the Board's agenda on September 15. The Board and the County Administrator met with the Elected Officials from the general government offices to review their preliminary budget requests for 2004. The meeting was recessed at the close of business that day and reconvened on Tuesday morning at 10:00 a.m. for a preliminary budget roundtable with the Public Works Department. All 3 Commissioners were present. SEAL: .." ~Þ--~........... . .,.., ''",. " , .t.·· :./ ''''. \t . ~ °1 \ (~ : *·11 {-. .'" . \ \" 'J~'~ 1 : ~ 1 j '. ;\ . .. 1 " ., JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~)/~~?i l!r:"/!' ?,:' ~ Y...:::::6. . Dan Titterness, Chair MEETING ADJOURNED . .; u ·Mack~ .. \. ATTEST: Ç)tJJ~ '-1¿ ~ 4;,maDelaney,CMC ~ Clerk ofthe Board Page 7