HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010394
MINUTES
WEEK OF JANUARY 3, 1994
Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence
of Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford.
Reor2anization of the Board: Commissioner Huntingford moved to nominate Commis-
sioner Hinton to be Chairman for 1994. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion and called for a vote
on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Consideration of Comments and Adoption of Proposed Ordinance Authorizin2 the
Execution of an A2reement Between Jefferson County and the Jefferson County Veterans'
Service Officers Association for the Disbursement of Funds from the Jefferson County Veterans
Assistance Fund: Commissioner Wojt asked what the function of the Veterans Service Officer's
Association would be under this ordinance? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that this
organization would be the organization to enter into an agreement with the County to help the County
administer the Veterans Assistance Fund.
Rob Spafford stated that there is no organization to enter into an agreement. The discussion
continued regarding the formation of this organization and whether or not the veterans organizations
can agree to participate in such an organization and then enter into an agreement to work with the
County. Ken Austin submitted a petition from the American Legion.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and adopt ORDINANCE No. 01-0103-94 authorizing
the execution of an agreement between the County and the Jefferson County Veterans' Service
Officers Association for the disbursement of funds from the Veterans Relief Fund. Commissioner
Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The public comments were about the Critical Areas
Ordinance; the length of time its taken to develop an agreement for use of some County right-of-
way; and the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to approve the consent agenda with the exception with Items 4 and 5.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 91-050A.4 re: Project No. 91-050A; Olympic Discovery Trail;
To Extend Project Period from December 31, 1993 to December 31, 1994; Interagency Committee
for Outdoor Recreation
2. Accept Recommendation to Award Contract; Animal Shelter, Project #ACF947; $209,445; Fischer
Construction \,_
3. RESOLUTION No. 1-94 re: The Statutory. Vacation of An Alleyf"'¡:>lat of Eisenbeis Bay View
Addition; Miles and Barbara Soskin ' .
... .20.. Db
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. DELETE RESOLUTION No. _ re: In the Matter of a Policy to Ensure Equal Opportunity in Housing for All Persons
(Attachment A: Jefferson County's Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan)
5. DELETE ORDINANCE No. _ re: Interim Land Use Control Establishing Interim Urban Growth Areas and Amending the Lot
Density Provisions of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance
6. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT re: Personal Services for The Period January 1, 1994
through December 31, 1994; $13,100; Washington State University Cooperative Extension
7. AGREEMENT, INTERLOCAL re: AIDS Omnibus Interagency Agreement; $11,685 for January
through June, 1994; Southwest Washington Health District
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Hearin2 Examiner Findin2s and Recommendation; Preliminary Subdivision Request;
Subdivision of 7.9 Acres as a 20 Lot Residential Subdivision; LP07-93; Located in Chima cum
at the Southwest Corner of Rhody Drive and Anderson Lake Road; Rhododendron Estates;
Tom Graves and Steve Gratzer. Applicants: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the
Hearing Examiner recommends approval of this preliminary 20 lot residential plat subject to several
conditions. He also recommends that the exception to the 10% Open Space dedication subject to
payment of fees (based on the fair market value assessment) in lieu of this actual Open Space
dedication be approved.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the walkways from the project to the Chimacum School?
The applicant had concern about the maintenance and liability due to safety on this trail off the
project site. Jerry Smith reported that the School has determined that the conditions along SR19
makes it unsafe for students to walk along. The School District has agreed to bus elementary school
students from this project and will pick up older students by request.
Chairman Hinton asked about the policy the School District set asking for a 100 foot turning radius
in the cuI de sac of the project? Jerry Smith reported that the applicant has agreed to go above and
beyond the County standard. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't feel that it is
necessary for the School District to ask for a large turn around in the cul-de-sac and then also ask
for a pull out on that Highway. Jerry Smith reported that Jefferson Transit asked for the pullout and
that staff felt that it would be appropriate to combine the pullout for the transit and the school bus.
The applicant has agreed to provide both of these items.
Mark Huth reported that there is a problem with the requirement in the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation that the applicant get a license to use County property for a walkway. He reported
that the County grants licenses for use of right-of-way, not County property. Granting a license on
this property would encumber the property and not allow its' use for anything else. He doesn't
believe the County can allow this which means that the condition set by the Hearing Examiner cannot
be met. The Board will have to either reject that condition or modify it. To change the condition
will mean that the Board must hold its own public hearing.
Ryan Tillman, representing the applicant, reported that the School District considers SR19 unsafe
for grade school students because of the amount of traffic and the speed on the road. The proposed
walking route would be through the subdivision along the proposed waterline and then up to Cherry
Street. The proponent is concerned about how they could assure the safety of children on this route.
In order for the School District to pick up older students there would have to be finding of additional
safety hazard.
Mark Huth reported that the Hearing Examiner has also required that the applicant construct a pull
out along SR19 for the Transit Authority and that may cause an undue delay in the project because
permission will have to be given by the State Department of Transportation. Commissioner Wojt
moved to set a public hearing on this preliminary plat for Tuesday, January 18, 1993 at 3:00 p.m.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
'VM. 20 U~ 02
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plannin2 Commission's Findin2s and Recommendation; Preliminary Bindin2 Site
Plan; To Develop a Five (5) Acre Parcel as a 27 Space Recreational Vehicle Park; Located
Near the Intersection of Irondale Road and Rhody Drive; Firwood RV Park; Robert F. Sahli.
Applicant: This is a proposal to develop a 27 space recreational vehicle park on a 5 acre parcel
located north of the intersection of Rhody Drive and Pattison Street (behind and north of the
Community Shell Station), Jerry Smith reported. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary
binding site plan. The primary concerns noted are the term of occupancy and whether or not this
project is an recreational vehicle park or a seasonal residential development. The Planning
Commission rejected the proponent's suggestion of a nine (9) month occupancy limit and proposed
a six (6) month occupancy limit within a twelve month period. Appeal of the SEPA determination
was remanded back to the Planning Department to allow the Planning Commission to hold their
hearing on this project.
Jerry Smith then summarized the issues in the SEP A appeal:
1) Whether the proposal is an Recreational Vehicle Park or permanent residences.
2) Whether the applicant can restrict children from living in the project through a covenant.
3) Does the Board of Commissioners have jurisdiction to hear the SEPA appeal?
4) Does the County have the legal right to assess fees to reimburse neighboring property
owners for construction of Pattison Street?
5) Under what County ordinance should the application be reviewed?
6) Is the application material complete enough for review?
Several of these issues were addressed as part of the public hearing held for the SEPA appeal. The
only issues still to be resolved are:
· The impact to schools:
District for 10 students.
The right of the County to assess a fee for the reimbursement of the cost of construction
of Pattison Street: The Prosecuting Attorney has advised that the County has not adopted
the required ordinances to impose such a fee for the construction of Pattison Street (the
street has already been constructed.) Mark Huth reported that this payment would have
to be in the form of a late comers agreements which the County has not passed an
ordinance to assess and Mr. Sahli's application would predate any ordinance that the
County could pass. The street is constructed and it is a public street.
The project proponent has agreed to pay a fee to the School
.
Commissioner Wojt asked if the definition of transient has been resolved? Mark Huth reported that
Mr. Sahli has come to an agreement with the School District on the amount of impact that would
be generated if there is a longer occupation period than six months. If the Board upholds the
Planning Commission recommendation that the occupancy be limited to six months, then Mr. Sahli
and the School District have agreed to negotiate a lesser number of students than the 10 suggested
for the nine month occupation limit. The Board could uphold the issuance of the MDNS with a
modification that the number of students that will be generated by the development will be agreed
upon by the School and the developer and then the developer will pay the fee previously set (see
Pope Resource, Inn at Port Ludlow.) The County would have to enforce this condition, and the
permit can be rescinded if the conditions are violated.
Chairman Hinton asked how a determination can be made on the SEP A appeal if the length of stay
is part of the binding site plan? Mark Huth reported that this issue came up as part of the SEP A
process because of the School District's appeal. Jerry Smith confirmed that this issue is part of the
SEP A appeal and there is a suggested mitigation measure that stipulates occupancy of the sites be
on a temporary basis, with the determination of the length of temporary occupancy to be approved
by the Board prior to binding site plan approval.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if there is a six month occupancy approved, if the School District
still require the payment for 10 students? Mark Beaufait, Attorney representing the Sahli's, explained
that Mr. Sahli has agreed to pay the fee for 10 students unless something less can be negotiated with
the School District.
Commissioner Wojt asked about the issue of the expansion of the site from the originally proposed
3 1/2 acres to 5 aces? Jerry Smith explained that the proposal was originally for 27 recreational
vehicle sites on 3 1/2 acres. A policy within' the Tri Area Plan, defines R V Parks as a resort,
commercial development and requires a minimum of 5 acres for such a development. In response
'. VOl 20 uc~ 03
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to that policy the applicant increased the size of their proposal from 3 1/2 acres to 5 acres. The
number of sites, and the layout of the project was not changed but the overall open space for the
project site was increased. Chairman Hinton asked if this is a requirement or a suggestion in the Tri
Area Plan? Jerry Smith reported that it is a policy and the ordinance requires compliance with the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan of which the Tri Area Community Plan is part. Mark Huth
reported that the applicant can modify his application. It would be counter productive for the County
to say that the applicant couldn't modify his application to meet the County's policies.
Ryan Tillman, representing the Sahli's, stated that regarding the issue of the road (pattison Street),
that road still has no permit (from the State DOT) and it has not been accepted by the County. Mark
Huth added that this is preliminary binding site plan approval and before final approval the road will
have to be accepted.
Commissioner Wojt moved to modify the mitigated determination of non-significance setting a six
month occupancy limit, deleting reference to the payment of a share of the cost of the construction
of Pattison Street, and that a finding is made that adequate provision has been made for schools.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Ande Grahn, Planning Commission, stated that the Planning Commission recommendation was six
months occupancy in every 12 month period and she asked if this would be the definition of
occupancy for all RV Parks or just this project? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth advised that the
definition is specific to this proposal. An amendment to that ordinance would be required to define
"temporary occupancy." Commissioner Huntingford asked how the applicant will enforce the six
month occupancy limit? Mark Beaufait answered that there will be a lease agreement for each site.
Chairman Hinton asked if the zoning of this property is general use? Jerry Smith reported that this
project is not subject to the Zoning Ordinance. Mark Huth added that a determination was made
that this project is exempt from the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Hinton asked if there is a rezone
application for the property where this project is located? Jerry Smith answered that there is a rezone
application for a portion of the site. Chairman Hinton asked how it can be determine what type of
use can be placed on a site if the project is not subject to the Zoning Ordinance? Prosecuting
Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Subdivision Ordinance requires the project to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. Jerry Smith added that the policy in the Tri Area Plan that identifies this as
a commercial resort development, and RV parks are allowed to be located in numerous designations
including residential and commercial.
Bill Irwin said that Section 450 of the Subdivision Ordinance says that any person can request a
hearing on a project before an impartial State hearing examiner, and he feels that would be the best
solution if there is a question of legality. He feels that this application is not correct. Mark Huth
stated that he disagrees with Mr. Irwin. The Subdivision Ordinance doesn't provide for a separate
hearing because one has already been held before the Planning Commission. If Mr. Irwin has
questions regarding the legal standing of this proposal, he can appeal it in the manner set forth by
law which, at this point, is to the Superior Court.
Mark Beaufait stated that the language of Section 4, Item 5 of Zoning Ordinance specifically exempts
the subdivision approval process from the Zoning Ordinance because it has its own process. This
application is a binding site plan under the Subdivision Ordinance and matches those requirements.
Dick Shold, property owner adjacent to Mr. Sahli, asked if Mr. Sahli has to redesign his site plan
since he increased the proposal from 3 1/2 acres to 5 acres? Ande Grahn, of the Planning
Commission, reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary binding site plan for
the five acre site. Mark Huth reported that the plan submitted was a preliminary site plan.
Chairman Hinton noted concern that the Open Space on this type of project is dedicated "in
perpetuity." Jerry Smith reported that the Ordinance requires the dedication in this manner. Mark
Huth explained that the condition is on the project, not on the property because that is all the County
has authority over. The ordinance should say for the life of the project.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
grant approval of the preliminary binding site plan subject to the conditions as stated in the Planning
VOL
20 Ut~ 04
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commission findings and conclusions dated December 8, 1993. Commissioner Wojt seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Treasurer IIa Mikkelsen re: Personnel Position: Ila Mikkelsen discussed the proposed
mid-manager salary system and the position of the Office Supervisor in her office. Commissioner
Huntingford moved to place the Office Supervisor in the Treasurer's Office in Grade 2 and to change
her title from Officer Supervisor to Chief Deputy. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
The Board then met in executive session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding
potential litigation.
HEARING re: Zone Chan2e #ZCP3-93; From General Use to General Commercial
Use; Three (3) Properties Located at the Northwest and Southeast Ouadrants of the Intersection
of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road in Port Ludlow; Mark V. & Carol Moriarty,
Kathleen Hilbert and Albert Loomis, Applicants: Chairman Hinton opened the hearing, read the
hearing procedures, and asked the following questions:
Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County
Commissioners in these proceedings?
There was no objection from anyone in the audience.
Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of
this hearing?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner?
A) All three Board members answered yes.
Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with
opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Hiller West, Shockey Brent, reported that the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to
the Board on this petition to change the zone designation of property located at the intersection of
Oak Bay and Paradise Bay Roads in Port Ludlow from general use to general commercial. The
Planning Commission recommendation was to approve the portion of the application for the Hilbert
and Moriarity properties and for Lots 1 and 2 of the Loomis property. The Planning Commission
recommended that the zone change not be approved for Lot 3 owned by Mr. Loomis. Lot 3 of the
Loomis property is the northerly lot of the Loomis Short Plat which is bordered by Osprey Ridge
Road on the east and by Blue Bird Lane on the north. Blue Bird Lane is a private easement, while
Osprey Ridge Road is a public right-of-way. The Oak Bay RoadlParadise Bay Road intersection was
designated a commercial center under the Comprehensive Plan, however the Osprey Ridge Road/Blue
Bird Lane intersection was not. This public hearing is regarding the northerly portion of the Loomis
property. The Moriarity and the Hilbert properties and the remainder the of the Loomis property were
approved for commercial designation by the Board on December 13, 1993. In finding number 4 of
the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions on this request, it was noted that the topography
of the upper, rear portion of Lot 3 of the Loomis property provides a physical separation from the
remainder of the property. Direct access onto Bluebird Lane from the rear of the property would be
undesirable because it is a residential access road and because of the proximity of neighboring
residences.
John Hansel, Perkins Coie Attorneys at Law representing Mr. Loomis, explained that:
1) The Loomis proposal complies with the only criteria that applies to this rezone. That is
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance indicates that compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is the only
applicable criteria. The Comprehensive Plan, through a dot, has designated a commercial
center over Mr. Loomis's property. One other potentially relevant policy in the
Comprehensive Plan is the one regarding strip development which says "Strip commercial
development along roads and highways leads to unnecessary traffic congestion, automobile
.. VOl 20 fAt~ 05
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
accidents, proliferation of signs and diminishment of adjoining property values. Therefore
commercial development should be located adjacent to existing commercial development
in a blocklike fashion or at the intersection of two or more arterial roads or within a
planned unit commercial mall. Commercial enterprises should be arranged and developed
on blocks of land so that signs, accesses, and traffic congestion can be kept to a minimum,
so that the security can be more easily provided and so that adjacent property values can
be maintained or enhanced." He then presented the conceptual plan for the property,
which he feels indicates that this policy of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied. The plan
is to share the access to the property off of Oak Bay Road with a church. There will be
no access to Blue Bird Lane or Osprey Ridge Road at all. Redesignation of the property
to commercial will not lead to other developments in the area. The properties to the north
and across the road are zoned residential and are limited by covenants and CC&R's to be
residential. He then submitted a copy of the CC&R's for Lots 2 through 11 (see attached.)
Mr. Hansel then explained that the 660 circle from the intersection, discussed in the staff
report as a potential guideline for where commercial development should be located,
technically doesn't apply to this project. This radius applies under the Zoning Ordinance
when there is a conditional use permit for a commercial use in a general use zone. This
is a rezone request, but even if this criteria was used, about 90% of Lot 3 is within this
radius.
2) The Planning Commission's two reasons for not including this Lot in the recommendation were
mistaken. They would have realized that neither reason had merit had they taken public testimony
and testimony from the applicants.
The Planning Commission indicated that they would have approved this proposal except
for two things: the potential for commercial access onto Blue Bird Lane, and the
topography of the site which they felt made internal access impossible. Blue Bird Lane
is a private easement. Only Lots 11, and 12 have the right to use this easement. Potential
for a commercial access onto Blue Bird Lane is not a valid concern. The topography of
a site is not a criteria.
3) The Board has essentially already decided the main issue, which is compliance with the
commercial area of the Comprehensive Plan because of a conditional use permit application
in 1992 where the Board considered this property as a whole and indicated that it was all
included under the Comprehensive Plan designation of a commercial center.
4) The current conceptual plan for the property cannot be construed as strip development.
Mr. Hansel added that the Planning Commission indicated that they would have approved this
proposal except for two things:
1) Potential access onto Bluebird Lane -- Bluebird Lane is a private easement, not a County
road. Only lot 11 and 12 have a right to access onto Bluebird Lane as listed on the plat.
The Loomis lot doesn't have a right to use any sort of access onto Bluebird Lane. The
concern for commercial access onto Bluebird Lane is not valid.
2) The topography of the site. The Planning Commission believed that the topography of the
site prohibited internal access and that the site should be divided into two different zones.
Topography is not a criteria for rezone. To apply topography in this situation as a wild
card criteria causes a number of problems. If the Planning Commission uses topography
is some situations, there is no way for applicants to know when it will be considered.
There is no guidance from the rules and regulations for its use. Also using topography
in a commercial area like this undermines the land use process. Even if topography is
used, it does not require that this lot be divided into two different zones. The average
slope on this property from Oak Bay Road to Bluebird Lane is quite uniform. The small
rise referred to by the Planning Commission member who visited the site is not a natural
feature. That rise was caused by the existing commercial development on the site.
Craig Chaney, with Merrick Lentz Architects in Bellevue, Wa., stated that the best solution for access
to this site is not the use of Bluebird Lane. The best access for the buildings on the property are
internal. There are two existing access points to the project which work well. A road was put into
the site from Bluebird Lane to allow clearing of the site and that road is too steep to be a driveway.
That access will be removed and the area re-planted. A 50 foot buffer has been proposed to buffer
the activities on this site from the residential neighborhood. The rise which separates the two
portions of the property was cut to create a parking lot for the commercial uses on a portion of the
site. The then explained the development plans for the site.
;~.VOl
20 UG~ 06
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ¡. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John Hansel continued by noting that in 1992 Mr. Loomis brought a conditional use permit before
the Board for this whole property. He then presented the findings from that determination that this
property was within the designated commercial center of the Comprehensive Plan Optimum Use Map
and was therefore appropriate for the intended uses of the proposal. These findings also state that
the Board felt that this property would not lead to strip commercial development, because the
geographic and ownership patterns and constraints on properties to the north, east and west of the site.
To summarize Mr. Hensel restated that the petition has met the criteria for granting this request; the
two reasons given by the Planning Commission for their recommendation are without merit; and the
Board has previously considered the issue and held that this property is commercial.
Bob Phinizy stated that he has the property directly across the street on Bluebird Lane. He is
concerned about increased traffic entering off of Osprey Ridge Road. He stated that he supports the
use of the property fronting on Oak Bay Road for commercial purposes. He objects to any access
to this property from Osprey Ridge Road because it is on a very steep curve with a poor view, and
in icy weather cars cannot stop. He also expressed concern regarding the height of the buildings and
the type of buffer zone that has to be planted. He also asked that no development of the site go any
closer than what is currently proposed, toward Blue Bird Lane. Noise, height, color, buffer, erosion
and injury are the remaining concerns.
Larry Cooney, Pastor of Morningside Fellowship, stated that they support this proposal. They have
purchased the property to the west of Mr. Loomis on Oak Bay Road. They have plans and have
submitted an application for a conditional use permit to build a church on their property. They would
like to share the driveway into the Loomis property which will save them thousands of dollars. The
type of facilities Mr. Loomis has in mind for this property will bring some quality types of services
into the community which are currently not available. He noted that he has a letter signed by the
Church Advisory Council supporting Mr. Loomis in his petition.
Forest Aldrich, Coldwell Banker, Real Estate, stated that he strongly supports this project. This
project represents the development of a better commercial base for the community. This is an
integrated site. Having an integrated commercial center makes a lot of sense. They are delighted
to share the driveway with the church.
George Randolph, Port Ludlow, stated that he objects to the idea that this isn't strip development.
When he moved to Port Ludlow there were only two commercial businesses in the area, now there
are over a dozen. He feels that Oak Bay Road should be kept as an arterial with a minimum of
driveways coming on to it.
Bill Wilton, President, Ludlow Maintenance Commission, stated that Lot 3 was originally to be three
single family residences. They had no problem with that, even though they had concern about access
to Bluebird Lane. They are concerned if this is designated as commercial, about what will keep the
project proponent from doing something other than what they have discussed on this property. They
object to this rezone.
William Murray, resides at 163 So Bay Lane and has an accounting office at the Coldwell Banker
Office, stated that he has known Mr. Loomis for many years as an individual and a builder. He is
an environmentally concerned, good builder. He has taken the issue brought up by the Planning
Commission and mitigated them. He has proposed a development that does not infringe on Bluebird
Lane or any further on Osprey Ridge Road. If this lot is left as residential, it will have to have
access either through commercial property or an access will have to be granted off of Bluebird Lane
or Osprey Ridge Road.
Keith Allred, 141 South Keel Lane, stated that he is in favor of this project. He is proposing to
provide services that are needed in this area. He lives within 1/3 of a mile of this intersection and
uses it almost daily. That intersection is impacted on three sides by commercial development. This
is the natural intersection for commercial development to be at in Port Ludlow. He is in favor of
this proj ect.
Janet Welch and Gary Phillips, Planning Commission members, reviewed the Planning Commission's
findings for the Board. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Planning Commission would have
VOL 20 fAC~ 07
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
approved this petition if the accesses were restricted? Janet Welch stated that the Planning
Commission did not consider that.
John Hansel stated in response to the Planning Commission members:
· That only five out of nine Planning Commission members recommended against including
Lot 3 in the commercial designation.
The Comprehensive Plan includes a number of references to a commercial center in Port
Ludlow.
There is a specific dot on the Optimum Land Use map in the Port Ludlow area. Also,
the Board has been asked before if the Port Ludlow Commercial Center includes this
property and the answer was yes.
There is no potential for access to Bluebird Lane, which is a private easement.
The Planning Commission did not allow them to comment on the proposal that removed
Lot 3 from the petition.
The Comprehensive Plan's policy is to prohibit strip commercial development. It says that
commercial development should be developed on blocks of land so that signs, accesses and
traffic congestion can be kept to a minimum. The proposal discussed today is exactly that
type of development, and will comply with all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
·
·
·
·
·
Hiller West stated that the Planning Commission did not review this conceptual site plan as part of
the rezone application. If the rezone petition is approved it would allow the owner of the property
to come in with building permit application for uses with different building footprints, access points,
etc. which would be reviewed administratively by County Planning staff. The CC & R's (covenants,
conditions and restrictions) on adjacent properties to the north are private restrictions which can be
modified by private action. Jefferson County is not the agent for enforcement of CC & R's.
Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if this was approved if Mr. Loomis would be willing to limit
access off of Osprey Ridge Road? Mr. Loomis stated that is correct. There is currently a temporary
construction access off of Osprey Ridge Road which will be removed. He would be willing, on Lot
3, to deed restrict any access on to Bluebird Lane or Osprey Ridge Road, so there would be no new
access created. Commissioner Huntingford asked how much of a buffer strip there will be between
Bluebird Lane and the first building on Lot 3? Mr. Loomis stated that there will be a minimum of
a 50 foot buffer from the easement along Bluebird Lane in a southerly direction along Lot 3.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the zone change (petition ZCP3-93) of Lot 3 as
requested with restriction to access on the lot as discussed. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth reported that written findings and conclusions
will be drafted for the Board's approval.
Hearin2 Notice re: Proposed Chan2e to the Interim UGA Ordinance: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to set a public hearing on a proposed change to Section 5 of the Interim UGA
Ordinance for January 24, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Zone Chan2e #ZCP5-93; From General Use to General Commercial
Use; Property Located Immediately Adjacent to and West of the Intersection of Oak Bay Road
and Paradise Bay Road, and Extends Across Breaker Lane to Ludlow Creek, Port Ludlow;
Pope Resources, Applicant: Chairman Hinton opened the hearing and explained the hearing
procedures, asked the following questions:
Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County
Commissioners in these proceedings?
There was no objection from anyone in the audience.
Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of
this hearing?
A) All three Board members answered no.
VOL
20 f~Π08
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q)
Q)
Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner?
A) All three Board members answered yes.
Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with
opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Hiller West explained that this is a petition for changing the zone from General Use to General
Commercial on a 34 acre property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Oak Bay and
Paradise Bay Roads. The intersection is designated a commercial center under the 1979
Comprehensive Plan and this property currently has some commercial development (grocery store,
mini mart, gas station, professional offices, and a recreational vehicle park across Breaker Lane to
the west) on part of it. The remainder of the property to Ludlow Creek is currently undeveloped.
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition in public hearings and recommends approval for the
portion of the property which lies between Breaker Lane and the intersection of Oak Bay and Paradise
Bay Roads (the currently developed portion of the property). The Planning Commission also
recommends denial of that portion of the property across Breaker Lane to the west which contains
the RV Park. He then reviewed Planning Commission Finding #6 which indicates that they feel
that triangular commercial zones are likely to result in considerable redesignation of parcels across
adjacent roads. The properties across Oak Bay Road are all zoned general use at this time. Finding
#7 of the Planning Commission stated that Breaker Lane (an access road to the property) provides
an identifiable boundary between the portion of the property which is fully developed and the
remainder of the property which is undeveloped.
David Cunningham, Pope Resources, presented a copy of the 1967 Port Ludlow Town Plan (6,000
residences and 20,000 people) which indicates that the area of this petition is a commercial area. In
1987 (2,000 residences and 5,000 people) plan still shows this area as commercial. The Development
Plan required by the County in 1992 also indicates that the area at the intersection of Paradise Bay
Road and Oak Bay Road (site #43) should be a commercial center which should have an additional
45,000 square feet of commercial development. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared last
year included this commercial area.
He then explained that in the process of the County adopting an Interim Zoning Ordinance, 13
commercial areas in the County were mapped and zoned. Port Ludlow was conspicuously left out
of the hundreds of acres of undeveloped commercial areas that were mapped for this ordinance.
Since development of the property in 1985 this site houses a Post Office, a travel agency, a bakery,
a grocery store, and gas station, a bank, an interior design shop, a title company, an engineering firm,
a counselling office and an RV park. There are roughly 15,000 square feet of commercial area.
About 10 acres of the total site is dedicated to commercial uses today. This corresponds with about
a third of the residential buildout of the development portion of Port Ludlow. This commercial area
doesn't just serve the Pope Resources/Pope and Talbot development project. It serves the
communities of South Point, Shine, Paradise Bay, Mats Mats and Swansonville. It will continue to
be the only commercial area in this whole locality because the County's proposal is that Port Ludlow
become an Urban Growth Area. There are 22 miles of Highway 104 between the Hilltop Grocery
store in Kitsap County and Discovery Bay, with no commercial development. The only commercial
development in close proximity to SRI04 is Port Ludlow. The traffic counts on SRI04 are 11,000
cars per day, and in the summertime that goes to almost 20,000 cars per day. The Port Ludlow
commercial area serves more than local convenience needs. It also serves tourist needs.
David Cunningham continued by explained that the term "blocklike fashion" was a term that he wrote
about 20 years ago from a Planning staff discussion. This simple term only meant that commercial
development should be designed in some sort of block to prevent strip commercial development. The
Planning Commission was primarily concerned about:
1) What would happen to the properties around this area if this property is rezoned
commercial. That doesn't make any difference and has nothing to do with whether this
property is rezoned or not.
2) What might happen with the new Comprehensive Plan and new Zoning map under Growth
Management. This also isn't pertinent to the proposal.
He feels that the Planning Commission's deliberations were about things that weren't critical to this
particular application. The Port Ludlow Community Planning Group asked what issues the community
felt were important. Repeatedly the people said better diversification and enlargement of the
'W0l
20 f~Π09
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
commercial area. He then submitted a letter of support for this application from Marietta Wilhelm
who couldn't be present today. She is a member of the Planning Committee.
He requested that the Board make different findings and come to a different conclusion than the
Planning Commission. He suggested that the Board's findings should:
1) Recognize that this proposal was covered by the extensive programmatic EIS adopted by
the County this year.
2) That the commercial use of the site has been historically planned.
3) That there is extensive commercial development on the site already.
4) That the growth of the community demands growing commercial facilities.
5) This commercial rezone site is the only one delineated on the Comprehensive Plan
Optimum Land Use Map within the boundaries of the proposed Port Ludlow Urban Growth
Area.
6) That this proposed rezone is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Wojt asked about the environmentally sensitive areas on this parcel? David
Cunningham reported that this is a request for a re-designation of the property. The logical boundary
for a commercial area in Port Ludlow fits within the boundaries of Oak Bay Road, Paradise Bay
Road and Ludlow Creek. When there is a specific project application submitted then it is subject
to all of the regulations of the State and County including SEP A. There is no way that Pope
Resources can continue to develop the site plan, and solicit prospective tenants, if the property isn't
zoned commercial.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about Marietta Wilhelm's letter (see attached) which indicates a
desire for a park adjacent to the creek. Is there is park planned in this area? David Cunningham
stated that the majority of the creek is already designated in the County's Shoreline Program as
natural. There are some sensitive areas along the creek which have to be protected through site
planning. There issue today is if this site is an appropriate place for commercial development given
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Wojt asked if the proposed Port Ludlow UGA must be taken into account in this
determination? Mark Huth reported that because Port Ludlow isn't a UGA yet, the Board can't
decide about this request on that basis. The decision must be based on what exists now. The Board
can take into account that Port Ludlow has been proposed to be a UGA and therefore will require
some commercial development. Hiller West interjected that the Planning Commission found as part
of their deliberations that it was likely that there would be a need for additional commercial area in
the overall Port Ludlow area. They felt that the way to address that need was through the GMA
process which is evolving through the participation of community groups and residents in that area.
The current petition is to be reviewed solely on the policies that are in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman opened the hearing for public comments.
Stanley Kadish, 41 Foster Lane, Chairman of the Port Ludlow Community Planning Committee, stated
that this committee was formed at the request of the County to work on an overall plan for Port
Ludlow in connection with GMA. Some of the discussion that took place at the Committee's meeting
was concerned with:
1) A County park is needed in this area. The lower portion of the commercial area along
the creek was considered a good area for a park.
2) The request for commercial area is 30 acres in size. At the present time there is 15,000
square feet of improved commercial area. If that is to be further developed there could
be a total of 20 complexes the size of those developed at Port Ludlow currently. The
committee feels that much commercial area would not be justified in today's market. Pope
Resources has had trouble keeping the present 15,000 square feet occupied. Additional
commercial designation has been granted across the road.
3) The Port Ludlow Development Plan indicates an area of "mixed use." If this request is
approved that area could be down zoned to high density residential uses without any review
by the County.
The committee felt that designating the area of existing commercial use is fine, but zoning the whole
area would circumvent any further planning in that area and take the purpose of the Planning
Committee away. The Planning Committee made a motion at the meeting that the County
VOt 20 fA(;~ 10
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commissioners be asked to hold in abeyance any decision on the petition to rezone #CZP 5-93 until
the Planning Committee has completed its work and submitted its report.
George Randolph. 1071 Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow, reminded the Board that Port Ludlow has
had a community plan since 1967. The plan was done by professionals, has infrastructure to make
it work, and it has millions of dollars of investment by Pope Resources to make it work. This is a
dynamic plan. Now the request is that another plan be done and that this request be held in abeyance
while it is. If this request is held in abeyance there will be more requests for commercial designation
which will encourage more strip development. Pope will lose time that is necessary to start marketing
the commercial properties. He recommended that this petition be approved. He also asked that the
Board rescind their request to have a community planning committee develop a plan for Port Ludlow
and instead ask that this committee be an implementation committee. The committee could work with
developers to make sure that the concerns of the community are taken into consideration on every
development. This committee would take the place of the Planning Commission and the Shoreline
Management Committee and allow citizens of Port Ludlow to plan for their area. He stated that he
feels that Pope should have this rezone.
Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth clarified that the three plans (1967, 1987 and 1992) are not
community plans under the County Comprehensive Plan. These are Pope Resources plans. The
Planning Commission does not consider if proposals are in compliance with them.
Charles McConnel. 171 Windrose, Port Ludlow, stated that he is a member of the Planning
Committee and supported the position submitted by that Committee. He is concerned that the
boundary of this rezone petition goes right down to Ludlow Creek. The Planning Committee is
concerned about wildlife habitat and providing access to the water for the wildlife. It would be a
real shame to have parking lots coming up to within 200 feet of the center of the creek bed.
John Hudsel. 181 North Bay Lane, stated that he is also a member of the Planning Committee and
he feels that it would be an aid to that Committee to have a designated site for commercial
development. As a Planning Committee member he supports this petition.
Janet Welch and Gary Phillip reviewed the majority and minority view of the Planning Commis-
sion.
David Cunningham noted in response to Mr. Kadish's comment, that it is mysterious that there was
no objection from this group to the previous rezone hearing for three properties in the same area.
He also doesn't understand why a group like the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (which
Mr. Kadish is also a member of supported the other rezone requests in this area. Mr. McConnel's
comments about the sensitivity of the creek is correct, but the community planning group will not
be deciding about buffer areas and sensitive areas. That will be done when a specific proposal for
the property is proposed and reviewed. The commercial village is approximately 5.4 acres in size
with another 5 acres in the RV park which means that 10 acres of the total 30 acre petition is
already consumed. There are probably another 7 to 10 acres in environmentally sensitive area along
the creek and that along with perimeter buffers along Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road will
bring the actual usable area down to about 8 to 10 acres. This area is meant to be used for
community convenience commercial projects and Pope Resource is aware that it's on a sensitive site.
The Comprehensive Plan does not intend, David Cunningham stated, for planning to be done on a
piecemeal basis. There is no market today for 45,000 square feet of new commercial area in Port
Ludlow, but over time there will be. The only way that can be planned for, is to secure the sites
as commercial.
Stanlev Kadish responded to David Cunningham's statement by noting that Mr. Loomis had presented
plans for what is proposed for commercial development of his lot. Pope Resources has not come
forth with any plans for what they will do with this property.
Dave Harris. 680 Rainier Lane. member of the Community Planning Committee, stated that he
supports Stan Kadish's statements and the Committee's position and asked why this needs to proceed
today? They see no reason to proceed with this at this time. They would like the opportunity to
look at this.
VOl 20 fAΠ11
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
George Rudolph stated that Pope Resources is not bound to a specific project at this time if this
rezone is approved.
David Cunningham reported that he had read the minutes of the Port Ludlow Community Planning
Committee's last meeting and it was stated in those minutes that they had no information at all on
the Loomis project and that is why they took no position on it. It was not that they had specific
information and chose to support the rezone.
Commissioner Huntingford asked when this rezone was originally applied for? Hiller West reported
that the petition was submitted on March 9, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford then stated that he
understands the concern of the Planning Committee, but he doesn't know if it would be fair to the
petitioner to make them go back to this committee, since the petition was submitted before the
Committee was actually formed.
Mark Huth reported that the only bearing that the GMA (which is why the Planning Committee was
formed) has on this petition is if an urban growth area is formed in this area, the County must
assure that there is the ability to handle the services necessary for urban growth. The focus of this
decision has to be on the current Comprehensive Plan.
Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the hearing.
The Board then discussed conditions that could be placed on project that may be proposed for this
site to mitigate impacts to the site.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the zone change for the whole parcel, as petitioned by
Pope Resources #ZCP5-93. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Mter clarifying what the
motion included, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
Cub Scout Pack 480 re: Discussion of Board of County Commissioners' Duties: The
Board met with several members of Cub Scout Pack 480 to discuss their duties.
HEARING re: Zone Chan2e #ZCP6-93; From General Use to General Commercial
Use; 2.5 Acres Located Alon2 the East Side of Hi2hway 101, Approximately One (1) Mile South
of the Intersection of Hi2hway 101/104; D.LP. Associates, Inc., Applicant: Chairman Hinton
opened the public hearing, read the hearing procedures, and asked the following questions:
Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County
Commissioners in these proceedings?
There was no objection from anyone in the audience.
Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of
this hearing?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner?
A) All three Board members answered yes.
Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with
opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard?
A) All three Board members answered no.
Hiller West stated that this petition is for a zone change from general use to general commercial
for a parcel of land located approximately one mile south of the intersection of SR101 and SR104.
The property is currently undeveloped with an unimproved driveway to it from Highway 101. The
property is located in the frequently flooded area adjacent to Crocker Lake on the west and north side
(between it and Highway 101), and is in an environmentally sensitive area. The project is about 300
feet from the lake depending on the lake's water level. There are unimproved roads in this area
which were created by the Plat of Snow Creek. These roads serve as driveways to some adjacent
residences.
VOL
20 ur;~ 12
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Planning Commission reviewed the petition in accordance with the policies for general
commercial development in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the criteria under
Section 13 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommends denial of this
petition. Some of their findings include:
· Finding #5: The Comprehensive Plan policy #1 directs commercial development to areas where
reasonable demand exists. The location of this proposal is in no way distinguishable from the
remainder of Jefferson County in terms of demand for services.
· Finding #6: Approval of this rezone would initiate commercial development where none currently
exists and would therefore promote the siting of additional commercial development in that
vicinity.
· Finding #7: The community of Discovery Bay which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as
a Commercial Center, is located about three miles from this proposed rezone. Allowing
commercial activities (i.e. gas stations and grocery stores) to be operated outside of such areas
negates the goal of creating and containing such centers.
William M. Palmer, Land Use Planning Consultant working with Dave Phinizy on this proposal, stated
that he wrote a letter appealing the Planning Commission recommendation. The appeal was submitted
because:
1)
2)
Hiller West said that there was considerable testimony at the Planning Commission hearing
against the proposal. There was, Mr. Palmer noted, a lot of discussion among the Planning
Commission members against the proposal. But, all of the comments from the neighbors,
except one, were positive toward this proposal. A mitigated determination of non-
significance has been issued for the project.
Mr. Palmer noted that none of the testimony he presented at the public hearing was
represented in any way in the Planning Commission's decision. The minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting did not reflect comments he made or Dave Phinizy made,
as well as some other people. There are neighbors who support this application. He then
reported that the Snow Creek Ranch has been around for quite some time. It served as a
logging camp with a substantial residential development. In the 1960's a plat was
approved with 116 lots on 32 to 35 acres. There was a designated air strip on this plat,
but it has never been developed. Mr. Phinizy purchased this property in 1991 and began
discussing use possibilities, which included an expansion of its current use as an RV Park,
permanent homes, and the development of a conference center in the future. Part of the
plat includes community beach access to Crocker Lake.
Mr. Palmer explained that Mr. Phinizy's plans are to develop a convenience store and gas station
on Lot 12. Convenience needs tend to be lumped together with more intensive commercial uses in
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Page 38 of the Comprehensive Plan indicates
that small "Ma and Pa" type stores serve the commercial needs of the more isolated rural areas, This
is an isolated rural area. This proposal is consistent with 11 of the 12 policies in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Policy #1 of the Comprehensive Plan says, "Commercial development should be located in areas
where a reasonable demand can be expected to meet the needs of the nearby community or
provide tourist oriented commercial services." This site, Mr. Palmer continued, is distinguishable
from the rest of Jefferson County because of its proximity to Highway 101. It is also adjacent
to and part of the Snow Creek Ranch facility which is developed to a density of four dwelling
units per acre. This intersection has good visibility is both directions. A left turn lane has been
included as a proposal to mitigate traffic impacts to Highway 101 from this proposal. This zone
change would allow the development of a convenience store to serve the needs of the traveling
public on Highway 101 and the community needs for the people that live in the Snow Creek
Ranch plat. There is no where to find gas along Highway 101 from the Hilltop area in Kitsap
County to Sequim in the west and Quilcene in the south.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: When this project is reviewed against all of the policies
in the Comprehensive Plan that are pertinent to commercial uses, it meets 11 of the 12 policies.
There is no specification in case law that says that in every instance all policies in the
Comprehensive Plan must be met.
Blocklike commercial development: The policies don't talk in great detail about what "blocklike"
is supposed to look like. This policy can be interpreted different ways. Since there are only
VOL 20 ur.~ 13
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
limited types of commercial uses that would likely locate in this area there is not much chance
of strip commercial development occurring.
Dave Phinizy, applicant, asked for a clarification from Mr. West as to the proximity to a frequently
flooded area? He noted that, from what he can tell, the FEMA maps do not indicate that this project
is within a frequently flooded area. Hiller West answered that the information that the County used
to determine environmentally sensitive areas included the FEMA maps. These maps were developed
around 1978 and more information may be available now.
Commissioner Huntingford asked what the elevation of the lot and the lake are? Dave Phinizy stated
that the elevation of Lot 12 is 202 to 200 feet, while the elevation of Crocker Lake at its normal
shoreline is 192 feet. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this lot was part of a recent boundary line
adjustment? Dave Phinizy answered that it was not. Commissioner Huntingford then asked if people
using the convenience store would have access to the lake? Dave Phinizy explained that the public
would not have access to the Lake from that lot, but he does plan to have a public access to the lake
from the recreation lot of the plat.
Gordon Mall, Sequim, stated that he is a frequent user of Crocker Lake. He is flabbergasted that
someone would want to put a convenience store in this rural and beautiful spot. He stated that the
lake floods to some degree every year and he feels that exposing gas tanks and drainfields to the
potential of a flood doesn't make any sense. Dave Phinizy stated that he owns the property around
that end of the lake and there is plenty of area for a reserve drainfield, and any storm water runoff
retention that may be required. Mr. Mall continued that it wouldn't take much of a rainstorm for a
large part of the area to be flooded.
Brian McLaughlin, Quilcene, stated that he has lived in this area for 15 years and has seen much
higher lake levels than what happened a few weeks ago. For the past four years the entire watershed
of Crocker Lake has been clear cut and there has been an increase a runoff in some of the streams
in this area. The DNR is proposing two major clear cuts along streams that run into the lake. He
added that he supports Mr. Phinizy's development of affordable housing in the area, but he feels that
any major commercial development on that site is inappropriate.
Darvl Moegling, Discovery Bay, stated that review of a zoning map of Discovery Bay shows that
there is no place for a gas station. There are many people asking for gas at the homes in this area,
and this project would be a real plus for him and everyone he has spoken to in Discovery Bay.
He has lived near this lake for 15 years and he doesn't agree with Mr. Mall's assessment of the
flooding. Mr. Phinizy's property has been consistently dry over the years.
The Planning Commission vote on this recommendation was unanimous, Hiller West reported. Dick
Broders, Planning Commission member, reported that there was a unanimous vote on this project not
being consistent with the siting criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Wojt moved to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny this zone
change petition. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday
morning. All three Commissioners were present.
Discussion re: Draft Critical Areas Ordinance (Continued from December 22, 1993):
Associate Planner Eric Toews continued his review and discussion of the draft Critical Areas
Ordinance.
· Item #6 on Page 2 of the staff memo regarding decision making record dated 12/8/93. This item
discusses deletion of Section 10.302 (page 48) of the current draft of the ordinance. That section
relates to payment of costs incurred for engaging consultants to assist the County in review and
interpretation of data submitted by applicants. The Clerk reported that at the last review of this,
the Prosecuting Attorney had suggested that the words "on behalf of the applicant," be removed
and the section be rewritten.
VOL
20
f'AG~
14
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Item 7 relates to the Prosecuting Attorney's observation that the remedy section of ordinance
should be expanded to provide a greater range of options for enforcement. He did not make any
specific recommendation on how to expand these options.
Chairman Hinton stated that he feels the purpose of the ordinance needs to be made clearer. One
thing McCutcheon had indicated was that all SEP A type language be removed. In many places in the
ordinance it refers to adverse environmental impacts while there is no definition of that in the
ordinance. Adverse impact is subject to many different interpretations. Eric Toews noted that he
feels the McCutcheon memorandum was fairly clear in trying to describe how the Growth
Management Act goes above and beyond the State Environmental Policy Act. She talked about the
legislative history and intent. If the Legislature had intended that the critical areas ordinance would
only protect if there was a probable significant environmental impact, it would have stated that in the
language of the Act. It was her interpretation that this ordinance should afford greater protection than
would be the case under SEP A.
Planning and Building Director Craig Ward stated that when the language used in SEPA is used in
an ordinance then the tendency is to refer back to SEPA case law. McCutcheon is pointing out that
it would be better to avoid that tendency by not using the same language. Chairman Hinton said
that a definition of protection is needed in this ordinance. Senior Planner James Holland reported
that the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions may provide a definition of protection. Craig
Ward added that the staff will review the Hearings Board decisions for such a definition.
Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the following wording for the first paragraph in the purpose:
"the purpose of this ordinance is to protect critical areas," add "and their buffers from development
proposals which pose significant environmental impacts. This ordinance allows for the balancing of
economic, social, and environmental values in pursuit of the overall GMA goals cited in the Growth
Management Act including the protection of landowners from discriminatory actions." He feels this
would help tie some of the composite goals into that first paragraph. Commissioner Wojt then read
from the Clallam County CAO policy and goals which he feels spells out the functions being
protected by the critical areas ordinance.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has read something from the DCD stating that the County
should first clearly set some goals for protection for public health and safety versus those for the
public benefit. He asked if that was done in this process? Eric Toews reported that was done in
one of the first drafts of the ordinance, but there was not, to his knowledge, any deliberation on
separating those two types of goals.
Chairman Hinton asked if the Planning Department has a copy of the DCD Data book? Craig Ward
stated that he does have a copy of it. The Data Source book was made available to the work groups.
There was quite a bit of information available to the work groups, but there wasn't a lot of
information available on the actual topography and resources available in Jefferson County.
Chairman Huntingford suggested that a sentence be added at the bottom of each purpose statement
saying that it is subordinate to the overall purpose statement of the ordinance. Eric Toews agreed
that this would be a way to make this clearer.
Chairman Hinton suggested that a statement be added regarding the amount of protected lands already
in the County. Eric Toews stated that the McCutheon memorandum directed that the finding in draft
5 that addressed this be deleted and it was. Craig Ward noted that the legislature was aware of the
lands in the State that are protected. The County is expected to protect the remaining critical areas.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that this issue has clearly been reviewed by the County in all of
the drafts of this ordinance. Eric Toews referred to page 8 of the McCutcheon memo which states
that she believes that the County faces a significant risk that the proposed ordinance will not be
legally defensible. There is no language in GMA which expressly permits a tradeoff between federal
and state controlled lands and private areas. The GMA was formulated in full awareness that
substantial parts of the State are set aside in federal and State ownership. The GMA is in addition
to existing controls over those properties. Craig Ward suggested that a statement could be added
that says, while a significant portion of the County is in federal or State control, the purpose of this
ordinance is to protect the critical areas remaining under County control.
Chairman Hinton suggested that the previous finding be reworded and included in the ordinance.
. VOL 20 fAc~ 15
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commissioner Wojt said that to keep the document as simple as possible, he feels this finding should
be left out. Commissioner Huntingford asked that this issue be revisited after the Board has some
time to think about it.
Chairman Hinton asked where there is reference to the regulated critical areas for health and safety
versus those for public benefit? Craig Ward advised that there is no specific reference to this in the
draft ordinance, but there are obvious health, safety and welfare issues, such as land slide hazard
areas, frequently flooded areas, and all geological hazard areas. Eric Toews said that this ordinance
focuses on health, safety and welfare. To get away from the takings issue, this ordinance clearly
does not address public benefit. The legal memoranda indicate that the ordinance provisions should
not result in situations where a public benefit was conferred. The purpose of the economic use
variance section is to avoid situations where the reasonable use of the land would be taken away from
the landowner. The question is, does the Board want provisions added that would allow alternative
means of relief through things such a transferable development rights in the ordinance? Chairman
Hinton suggested that just the health, safety and welfare areas be designated and mapped. Craig
Ward stated that wording could be added to the finding that this ordinance is to protect health, safety
and welfare and those are the areas that are dealt with. Craig Ward noted that they will revise the
purpose statement to make it very clear that the focus of the ordinance is on health, safety and
welfare.
The discussion continued regarding the portions of the ordinance that provide for buffer widths and
how that relates to public benefit or protection of the public health, safety and welfare, and if a
specific buffer width should be set.
· Item 8, page 2: Eric Toews reported that Mark Huth's memo suggested that a Notice to Title
form be included as an appendix to the ordinance so that standard language is used in each
instance. This would not be hard to do. Commissioner Huntingford added that this has been
discussed many times over the last year. Mark Huth suggests, Eric Toews pointed out, that a
somewhat related issue is Item 2 on Page 3 (policy issue) that the conservation easement and deed
restriction clause options for critical areas be included in the ordinance. He doesn't elaborate on
why he feels it's necessary to include those items. This is a matter that should be discussed
further with Mark Huth. Item 7 should also be reviewed with the Prosecuting Attorney.
The Board concurred that item 8 be added to the ordinance.
Chairman Hinton stated that in establishing this decision making record the personal opinion of the
attorneys are being considered, and asked if the public comments are also being considered at this
time? Eric Toews reported that the procedure established at the last workshop was to review the
decision making memorandum first and then the public testimony will be reviewed and considered.
Chairman Hinton asked if the Board members have reviewed all of the public testimony and if it
is being used in making these decisions? Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has read all of
the public testimony and feels he has used it in this decision making process. Commissioner Wojt
agreed that he would be using all of the input received also.
Attorney recommendations regarding policy issues and decision making rationales (Page 3):
Policy issues not related to the decision making record:
.
Items 1 and 2, Page 3: This restates the point made by the Prosecuting Attorney that the
ordinance does not include policy language identifying non-regulatory options. The Prosecuting
Attorney suggests that non-regulatory options be identified in the policy language and specify
when the County will pursue such options. Options that have been discussed are: transferring
development rights, cluster housing, and the County's Public Benefit Rating System under the
Open Space program. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Best Management Practice (BMP)
procedures should be added to this list? Eric Toews stated that the local Conservation District
has been working with farmers to develop BMP's and that is something the County would
encourage. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that these options be listed in the ordinance for
landowners to consider. Eric Toews suggested that the draft Field Guide could also be referenced
as an information source for landowners. Some policy language will be drafted to be added to
the ordinance to address these options.
VOL
20 UΠ16
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Policy issues - Decision making rationales:
· Item 3, Page 3: Building Permit Exemption. Mark Huth discussed this at some length and
suggested the following options:
1) Remove the blanket exemption for building permits and specify that building permit applications
are triggering applications for the purpose of critical areas review under this ordinance. This
would cause the waiver provisions of the ordinance to be used more often than they would be
under the ordinance in its current form.
2) Limit the building permit exemption and identify which specific types of building permits
would be exempt or not exempt. Certain types of development activities do not pose significant
environmental impacts. The exemption thresholds used in the SEP A Green Book could be used
as a basis for selectively determining what types of building permits would be regulated or
exempted. Craig Ward provided the following examples of both types of permits:
Over four units trigger SEPA in the cases of multifamily housing (fourplexes) and short
plats. A duplex or two lot short plat would be exempt from SEP A review unless they are
in an environmentally sensitive area.
Other exempt examples are: single family homes, wood stove permits, some fence permits,
and agricultural buildings.
There are also exemptions from building permits.
Craig Ward reviewed what the process may be for permits, if some permits are exempt and some
aren't. He added that there will be some delay in the permitting process because this would add
an additional layer of review. Commissioner Wojt reported on the way Clallam County handles their
permit review and stated that if this process was adopted here the Board would have to make sure
that there is enough staff to handle these reviews.
The Board directed that the categorical exemptions from SEP A and the different types of Building
Permits need to be reviewed and then this issue will be revisited. Commissioner Huntingford stated
that he wants to assure that the building permit review for single family homes be done as cheap and
fast as possible. Craig Ward suggested that the Prosecuting Attorney be consulted about the liability
issues involved with the critical area review process. The Planning staff will provide a summary of
the categorical exemptions under SEP A and the different types of building permit exemptions for the
Board's review.
· Item 4, page 3: Use of the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands (versus the use of the 1989 Manual). Mark Huth noted that this was an area of concern
and that the reasons for use of the 1987 manual need to be identified for the record. The 1987
manual was approved by the Western Washington Growth Planning Hearings Board and that
approval was based on finding sufficient rationale to support that choice in the record. This has
been discussed several times on the record. An information sheet prepared by the DOE includes
a comparison of the 1987 and 1989 manuals. The Board needs to explain for the record why they
prefer one approach over the other.
Chairman Hinton asked if the 1987 manual has withstood court challenge? Eric Toews reported
that the Growth Management Hearings Board upheld the use of the 1987 manual based on a specific
rationale made by Clark County. Commissioner Huntingford added that use of the 1987 manual is
a far better approach because it is simpler to use for what the County is trying to regulate. Since
President Clinton has been in office the Federal government is using the 1987 manual instead of the
1989 manual. Chairman Hinton stated that he feels the 1987 manual is more consistent with the
County's purpose statement also. Commissioner Wojt stated that he has discussed this with a wetland
expert who stated that either of these manuals will do the same thing in the hands of an expert.
Craig Ward restated that the basis for the Board's decision to use the 1987 manual are:
* Consistency with the approach used by the federal government.
* Simplicity in using the 1987 manual.
* The 1987 manual accomplishes the purpose of the ordinance more effectively than the 1989
manual.
Commissioner Huntingford clarified, as requested by Paula Mackrow, that he feels the use of the 1989
manual would be simple if only one of the criteria (soil type, plant life, standing water) were to be
VOL 20 rAG~ 17
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
considered. Chairman Hinton stated that he agrees with Commissioner Wojt's statement that a
properly trained person will not make many errors and he supports the 1987 manual on those grounds.
· Item 5, Page 4: Recommended buffer widths. Mark Huth stated that the Hearings Board
will not substitute its' judgement for that of the Elected Officials as long as the record
reveals a basis for the choice among options that comply with the GMA. He advised that
the Board explain the rationale for the changes between drafts. Eric Toews reviewed the
options and traced the evolution of this section of the ordinance to the present date. He
then reviewed the buffers suggested in each draft of the ordinance as outlined in his memo
(see attached). The purpose of this review is to demonstrate why the approach that is
taken is one that is supported by a legitimate rationale.
Commissioner Wojt stated that there was ample testimony that Class 3 and 4 wetlands have to have
some type of buffering protection. The 75 and 50 foot buffering is too small. Also the qualities
of the Class 1 and 2 need greater buffers than have been addressed in this draft of the ordinance.
Chairman Hinton agreed that Class 3 and 4 wetlands need to be buffered. Commissioner Huntingford
added that he also feels that class 3 and 4 should have some buffer. He would like to find a middle
ground to provide protection that is adequate, but is not overly protected. Eric Toews clarified that
the Board needs to explain why this approach is supported by a legitimate rationale.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he is incorporating the public testimony with why the decision
was made in the past. The 200 and 300 foot buffer widths for Class 1 and 2 wetlands were, at one
time arbitrary numbers and there may be scientific information developed to support them. The 50
foot width could probably have scientific data developed to support it as well. When we look at
Jefferson County and the density now, Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't feel that
density is high enough that the highest width is needed. A smaller number might be more than
adequate for Jefferson County. In looking at both sides (land owners and environmental), if there
is a compromise the one that will be giving up something will be the landowner because they are
the ones that have the property. He recommended the following buffer widths:
High Intensitv Low Intensitv
150 feet 75 feet
100 feet 75 feet
50 feet 25 feet
25 feet 25 feet
Class I
Class n
Class nl
Class IV
Commissioner Wojt asked if a buffer would mean that there will be restrictions in that area? Craig
Ward stated that there will be rules on uses within buffer areas which will normally include no
development activity. Buffer width averaging may be applied in some cases which allows configuring
the buffer for a specific proposal. Craig Ward clarified that he is speaking of standard buffer width,
not maximum buffer widths. The buffers in the ordinance are the standards that will be required.
Eric Toews added that there is a section of the ordinance that addresses increases in buffer widths
under certain conditions when the Planning Department can demonstrate that the standard buffer width
will not adequately protect functions and values (page 27 and 28 of the proposed ordinance), and a
similar provision is provided for reducing buffer widths below the standard (Section 6.506.) There
is also a provision in Section 6.108 that allows averaging of standard buffer widths.
Chairman Hinton stated that there has to be some clarification in the ordinance that a buffer doesn't
impact adjacent property owners. Craig Ward stated that is implied, because an applicant doesn't
have any control over what an adjacent property owner does. For example on a subdivision with a
wetland that is contained entirely within its boundaries, the buffer widths will be identified on the
face of the plat. There will be instances were a wetland is only partially within a subdivision's
boundaries and the portions outside it would not be regulated under this ordinance. Eric Toews stated
that the County, through this ordinance, has regulatory authority for a specific permit and the buffer
width can only be applied to the specific parcel under that permit. The County does not have the
authority to impose regulation on an adjacent property owner.
Chairman Hinton asked what is allowed within a buffer? Craig Ward reported that Section 6.505
delineates what can be done in the buffer, which is minimal and really indicates that the buffer will
be left in a natural state. There are a host of land uses that can be done that do not require a
County permit (i.e. path through a wetland buffer), if they occur and someone files a complaint, the
County would have to enforce the provisions of the ordinance. The County's enforcement abilities
VOL
20 Uf ~ 18
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
are not improved by this ordinance. The County has few options for enforcement that have any
effect.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the differences between major and minor new development
and how this would be determined? Eric Toews reported that this terminology and approach is used
by Clallam County. This draft of the ordinance includes high and low intensity and also includes
definitions of those terms. The Board needs to determine if they feel these definitions are adequate.
Chairman Hinton asked if a one acre land use would be high or low intensity use? Craig Ward noted
that the ordinance says "subdivision development with an average density of more than one parcel
per acre is a high intensity land use and less is a low intensity land use." Exactly one unit per acre
isn't addressed. This wording will be revised to say one acre or less is a low intensity land use.
Craig Ward asked if the buffer width proposal made by Commissioner Huntingford is what the
Board wants included in the ordinance? Chairman Hinton stated that he is in agreement with the
sizes proposed by Commissioner Huntingford, but he feels there should be clarification in the
ordinance of the allowable uses within buffers. Eric Toews asked how this could be clarified? The
County only has the authority to regulate activities with triggering applications, and there will be
mitigation conditions placed on proposals through this ordinance regarding what can happen in the
buffer. He asked if the Board wants staff to develop a list of activities that would be permitted and
a list of activities that would be prohibited within wetland buffers, which could be used as a basis
for mitigative conditions. Craig Ward added that he feels that if a triggering permit is required that
there would be no use allowed in the buffer. A report from a consultant stating that certain uses may
be appropriate in the buffer could be considered, however. He suggested that the possible uses
reviewed by the work groups be evaluated. This information will be brought back for further review.
Commissioner W ojt stated that if a wetland buffer is adequate depends on whether the wetland is
adjacent to a stream. One idea put forward was that buffers along streams at least cover the 100 year
flood plain. He noted that he has no scientific basis for saying that the buffers are enough or not
enough. He has no better suggestion for these buffer widths, than those suggested by Commissioner
Huntingford.
.
Item 6, page 6: The Prosecuting Attorney noted that aquifer recharge area review or expansion
and repair of major energy transmission and generating facilities had been eliminated from the
ordinance. Eric Toews reported that the minimum guidelines advise that the general land use
should be considered in evaluating the contaminate loading potential of aquifers. The GMA
work group recommendation included the following policy statement "The County will evaluate
and seek to avoid damage from projects that overlay wide and varied terrain including and not
limited to pipelines, transport of hazardous materials, fertilizer and pesticide use, feedlots,
commercial and public systems, etc. where underlain by aquifers of highly susceptible designation."
Eric then reviewed the evolution of how this was addressed in the various drafts of the CAO.
He stated that the rationale for the change should be explained for the record.
Commissioner Wojt noted that with regard to aquifer recharge, the use of the drastic model says that
they are a critical area only in places where there are large populations. Eric Toews explained that
the issue to be addressed is an explanation of the rationale for the changing the aquifer recharge area
review from construction and expansion to just construction.
Chairman Hinton stated with regard to repair of transmission lines, it doesn't make much sense to
require that review in an emergency. Craig Ward stated that the County can deal with an emergency
through a special proclamation that waives certain requirements. Craig Ward pointed out that there
is a fine line between what is an expansion and what is a repair. Substations present a significant
contamination threat to aquifers in the form of PCB spills associated with transformers. It may make
sense to have the protection of the aquifer considered when a repair is made. Chairman Hinton noted
that there would be no one to do the review unless the emergency happened between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Monday through Friday. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the CAO ordinance didn't state
specifically oil pipeline or transmission line, would these projects be subject to SEP A review? Craig
Ward stated that there is not always a triggering land use permit for SEP A review on these types of
projects.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he agrees with Chairman Hinton regarding concern for
emergency repairs. As far as expansion of a major energy transmission facility, that issue should
VOL 20 Uf,: 19
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
possibly be addressed. Eric Toews reported that SEP A rules exempt emergency repairs of such
facilities, when they are done for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. A similar
exemption was placed draft 5 of the ordinance. He asked if the Board would like to extend the
exemption to expansion, as well as repair? Also, should normal, routine repair and expansion not
be exempt? Chairman Hinton asked why the exemption was deleted from the ordinance? Eric Toews
answered that the Prosecuting Attorney stated that it was inappropriate for this ordinance to make
references to exemptions contained in other ordinances. He advised that it was better to state in a
positive fashion what is regulated by the ordinance.
The Board directed that the normal maintenance, operations and emergency repairs be exempted
from the ordinance and that a definition be developed for expansion. Craig Ward stated that the
previous wording will be brought for the Board's review.
.
Page 7, item 7: Changes in Definitions. The Prosecutor noted in his memo that there had been
significant and repeated changes in the language designating geologically hazardous areas. Eric
Toews explained that these changes to the ordinance need to be supported by rationale based on
appropriate factors.
Commissioner Wojt stated that the problem of slope and slope stability depends on what the slope
is made of. He asked if this ordinance is triggered by a building permit, does the Uniform Building
Code demand that consideration of a particular slope have to be taken into account before a structure
can be approved? Craig Ward said that he would have to ask the Building Inspector about that.
Eric Toews reported that the Board needs to consider the minimum guidelines which include the
following areas as landslide hazards: (Areas with all three of the following characteristics):
1) Slopes greater than 15%, steep hillsides intersecting geological contacts with a relatively
permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment (bedrock), and springs or
groundwater seepage.
2) Slopes having gradients greater than 80% that are subject to rock fall during seismic
shaking are also geologically hazardous landslide areas.
3) Any areas with slopes of 40% or greater and a vertical relief of 10 or more feet (except
areas composed of consolidated rock.)
These are the three areas identified as subject to landslides within the DCD's minimum guidelines.
Chairman Hinton noted that Clallam County identified these areas in separate ordinances. Eric Toews
reported that all these areas referenced in the Clallam County Critical areas ordinance. Clallam
County has almost totally followed the minimum guidelines in their definition and designation
language.
Craig Ward pointed out that one critical issue is the County's ability to map the designated areas.
Maps would be used in the early review process to determine if there is a likely critical area on the
property. The only comprehensive map available is the soil survey of the County. This is virtually
the only source that covers the entire County and identifies soil types and also talks about the
limitations of different soil types for building, road construction, etc. He explained that if the
designations are made different from the information in the Soil Survey, then there will be less
information available from which to make determinations. He recommended that the County stick
with either a 15% or 30% slope to be able to use the information in the soil survey. Commissioner
Wojt suggested that if every time a permit comes in, a site evaluation be done immediately. This
would allow the property owner to know immediately what they will have to do on their site.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that there may be more liability for the County to have a staff
person make a determination on this type of critical area. Craig Ward explained that have a site
inspection for wetlands would work the best because there are physical components on the property.
A site inspection for landslide hazards may or may not be apparent and the mapped information is
critical to this determination. Site inspections would not be effective for aquifer recharge or
frequently flooded areas. Mark Huth would have to advise the Board about the liability issues.
Discussion ensued regarding the soil survey and how it would be applied through the CAO.
Craig Ward reported that the Board will need to determine what will be included in the ordinance -
moderate and/or severe building limitations. Eric Toews reported that the ordinance as drafted uses
a combination of criteria for designating landslide hazard areas. It identifies broad categories: 1) areas
of historic failures or potentially unstable slopes (areas described and mapped as having building
VOL 20 fM.' 2f1
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
limitations within the Soil Survey), 2) areas described and mapped as recent or old landslides within
the Coastal Zone Atlas, 3) areas described and mapped as areas of poor natural stability, former
landslides and recent landslides by the State Department of Natural Resources. The ordinance in its
current form references all of these categories as being potentially unstable and regulated by the
ordinance. Craig Ward reported that slope percentage, the areas potentially unstable as a result of
rapid stream incision, and areas with indications of mass movement (rock slides, etc.) that haven't
been mapped in one of the three previously discussed areas, would require a site specific evaluation.
Eric Toews pointed out that the approach of using the Soil Survey combination of slope and soils
is consistent with the minimum guidelines.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels that the reference to 45% slope should be taken out
of the ordinance and that severe building limitation be addressed, with reference to the Soil Survey
and the Coastal Zone Atlas. He feels this will coincide with the County's mapping, and is the easiest
for staff to apply.
The erosion hazard area section of the draft ordinance was then reviewed by Eric Toews. He
suggested that the 45% slope be removed from this section as well. The Board agreed that the Soil
Survey be used and the reference to a specific slope percentage (45%) be deleted from the ordinance.
.
Item 8, page 9: The Prosecuting Attorney noted that there was significant changes in the language
in designation of significant wildlife habitat areas. The rationale for modifying the language needs
to be set forth in the record. He then reviewed the options as outlined in his memo dated
December 8, 1993. He noted that the most notable change in the drafts was the elimination in
the March 1993 draft of the habitats of local importance and the elimination of the reference to
the Admiralty Audubon Society's Natural Areas Inventory. The current draft of the ordinance
focuses on habitats associated with threatened, endangered and sensitive species. There was also
a change in types referenced in various drafts. The current draft of the ordinance extends
designation to only type 1, 2, and 3 waters.
Commissioner Huntingford asked how the current draft ordinance relates to the public health and
safety issue for wildlife habitat? Eric Toews answered that the Growth Management Act draws a link
between a local jurisdiction's implementation of the Act and the provisions of the Act itself. The
GMA is intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare and it identifies protection of fish
and wildlife habitat area. The County's implementation of the Act implies protection of these habitats
for the public's health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the DCD Blue
Book makes no mention of what type of benefit fish and wildlife habitat is considered. Eric Toews
explained the both the Huth and McCutheon memos indicate that the local jurisdiction is to designate
these areas because the State legislature has identified these areas as needing protection for the
public's health, safety and welfare.
Commissioner Wojt stated that an environment that is not rich in variety is more vulnerable to
disease, and wide swings in viability. The health of the community is related to having a large
variety of animal species. Chairman Hinton stated that, even though local species have to be
considered, the only species that have to be protected are the endangered species and they are
protected by other regulations. He asked if the Board has to make a determination about what local
species should be protected? Craig Ward answered that the minimum guideline states that endangered
species have to be protected. Listed as other things to consider in the minimum guidelines are
habitats of local importance.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that earlier in the year one of the things being considered was why
the County would consider adopting something that the Audubon Society came up with over any other
group in the County? He asked what the rationale was in the work groups for recommending the
adoption of the Audubon Society list? Craig Ward stated that issue was raised in the work group
on wildlife and the State Department of Wildlife representative indicated that the Audubon Society
has a great deal of credibility for developing such a list. Eric Toews added that the Audubon survey
was based on other recognized data sources. He explained that this survey was somewhat limited
in scope, however, to areas where members of the Society reside.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that several written comments were received asking that the
Audubon Society's list be reincorporated into the Ordinance. This issue is a major stumbling block
in this whole section and he would like more time to consider it.
VOL
20 ur: 21.
..
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 3, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Craig Ward stated that there is an administrative problem with using the Audubon Society's list.
Many of the species are obscure and unknown in Jefferson County. If all of the areas identified were
designated, then there needs to be some source of information to rely upon to determine if the
proposed protection is adequate. It's over simplified to protect habitat areas that are associated with
several species. For example protecting old growth timber may or may not provide habitat protection
for spotted owls. Once it has been determined that habitat exists on a site, then how will an adequate
mitigation plan for that species be developed? The County would have to have a wildlife specialist
do that. Then, on what basis would that specialists recommendation be reviewed? On priority
habitats and species (list by the State) there is a recommended management prescription for each
species. There are some species that a management prescription hasn't been developed for. Where
will the management prescriptions come from for the species on the Audubon list? There are also
plant species areas listed in the Audubon list. Craig Ward recommended that the State priority
habitats and species be used for designation of these areas.
Commissioner Huntingford suggested that this section of the ordinance be left as is, at this time.
Chairman Hinton stated that any group can get together and make a recommendation like this, and
with the recent changes in the management of the Audubon Society organization, he is not sure the
County should be putting to much stock in their list.
The Board concurred that this review be continued to January 14, 1994 at 9:00 a.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED
JEFFERSON COUNTY
OF COMMISSIONERS
SEAL:
ATTEST:
VOL 20 ~~r.: 2?