Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011094 MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 10, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioner Richard Wojt and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. Discussion re: Ferry Board Vacancy: Commissioner Huntingford moved to accept the resignation of Win Williams from the Ferry Advisory Board and to appoint Bill Matheson of Port Hadlock to serve in his place, as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Prosecutin2 Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of the County Adoptin2 a Policy to Ensure Equal Opportunity in Housin2 for All Persons: Mark Huth questioned why this resolution needs to be done in order to get federal funding. He noted that the resolution says that the County will· represent anyone "who feels they have been discriminated against", and this would put a burden on the County. This in effect would make the County the legal representative for such a claim. Mter further discussion of how this resolution can be changed to better meet the needs of the County. The Prosecuting Attorney and the Community Service Director were directed to reword the resolution and present it to the Board later in the day. Title VI Certification for CDBG Fundin2: Bonnie Lichty, Skookum Products and Services, explained that this certification is specific to the Skookum project and shows that the County has provided outreach to protected groups of individuals. The certification also outlines how the program will involve these targeted groups. Commissioner Wojt moved to have the Chairman sign the Title VI Certification as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: An objection regarding the Firwood RV Park; discussion of problems with the way some County roads are being maintained; and a discussion of the need to create an environment to keep our children in the County. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete items 4, 15, 18, and 19 and to approve the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. . VOL 20 rA[~ 42 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2-94 re: Hearing Notice; Emergency Budget AppropriationsÆxtensions; Various County Departments; Hearing set for January 18, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 3-94 re: 1993 Budget Transfers; Various County Departments 3. Application for Assistance from the Veterans' Assistance Fund; from the American Legion #26 for $500.00 4. DELETE Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; Modifying the Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance; BSP-01- 93; FiIwood RV Park; Robert F. Sahli 5. RESOLUTION NO. 4-94 re: Cancellation of Unclaimed Warrants 6. RESOLUTION NO. 5-94 re: Release of Oil and Gas Rights for Property in the West End of Jefferson County 7. RESOLUTION NO. 6-94 re: Adopting An Administrative Manager Salary System 8. Final Subdivision Approval; Short Plat #SP26-91; Four Lots Adjacent to Gardiner Road; Bill Griffith 9. Request for Payment of Fourth Quarter Allocation $5,000; Jefferson County Conservation District 10. AGREEMENT, Supplement No.1 re: Consultant for Chima cum Road Improvement, CR0953, Federal Aid Project Number RS-QI61(002); Parametrix, Inc. 11. AGREEMENT re: Revised Certification Acceptance Qualification; State Department of Transportation 12. RESOLUTION NO. 7-94 re: Statutory Vacation of A Portion of Phillips Avenue and Louisa Street; In the Plat of Phillips Bay View Addition 13. AGREEMENT re: Economic Development Planning Services, January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994; Economic Development Council of Jefferson County 14. Final Subdivision Approval; #LP-09-92; Brinnon Beach Estates; A.C. Dalgleish 15. DELETE Hearing Notice re: Changes to Section 5 Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance; Hearing set for January 24, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. 16. Approval of Recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board; Change Name of Trail from Port Townsend to Adelma Beach; Change to Larry Scott Memorial Park 17. CONTRACT No. 1-93-742-047 re: Community Development Block Grant; Clallam/Jefferson Community Action Council Programs; State Department of Community Development 18. DELETE Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; Zone Change Petition #ZCP-1-93; From General Use to Commercial Use; Near SR19jSR20; Eagle Eye, Inc. 19. DELETE Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; Zone Change Petition #ZCP-9-92; From General Use to Commercial Use; Near SR19jSR20; Myrl Hancock 20. RESOLUTION NO. 8-94 re: Establishing the Prosecuting Attorney's Salary for 1994 Adoption of Findin2s and Conclusions; Zone Chan2e Petition #ZCP-I-93; From General Use to Commercial Use; Near SRI9/SR20; Ea21e Eye, Inc.: Commissioner Hunt- ingford moved to approve and adopt the findings and conclusions for the Eagle Eye zone change petition #ZCP-I-93. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Hinton voted for the motion and Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Adoption of Findin2s and Conclusions; Zone Chan2e Petition #ZCP-9-92; From General Use to Commercial Use; Near SRI9/SR20; Myrl Hancock: Commissioner Hunt- ingford moved to approve and adopt the findings and conclusions for the zone change petition #ZCP-9-92. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Hinton voted for the motion and Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hearin2 Examiner's Recommendation; Conditional Use Permit #IZ-51-93; 2 Sta2e Expansion of Existin2 Church Facility, Parkin2 and Access; Rhody Drive, Chimacum; The Church of the Latter Day Saints, Applicant: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to approve this conditional use permit. ChaÌ1:.man Hinton seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried. VOL 20 f'AŒ 43 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearin2 Examiner's Recommendation; Preliminary Plat #LP-05-93; Silent Lake; 76 Acres into 15 Lots All Greater than Five Acres in Size; Toandos Peninsula, East of the Covle Road; JAL Associates, Applicant: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reviewed the findings and conclusions on this project. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is reference in this recommen- dation regarding where the buffers will be measured from? Jim Pearson reported that the SEPA threshold determination is where that information is listed and that determination is referenced in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the findings, conclusion and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance: Community Services Director David Goldsmith explained that the Prosecuting Attorney has advised that the changes suggested for Section 5 of the ordinance cannot be made without having another public hearing on the ordinance. If the Board wants to change section 5, David Goldsmith recommended that the Board pass the ordinance as it is and then hold a hearing on the proposed changes to Section 5. Commissioner Huntingford moved to sign the ORDINANCE NO. 02-0110-94 as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Huntingford then moved to sign the hearing notice setting the hearing on the proposed changes or possible deletion of Section 5 for Monday January 24, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Adoptin2 a Policy to Ensure Equal Opportunity in Housin2 for All Persons: After reviewing the changes to the wording of this ordinance made by the Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of Community Services, Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 9-94 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Discussion of Franchise; Black Point Road; Sam Bolin2: Public Works Traffic Engineer Technician Bob Henderson reported that Sam Boling applied for a franchise to install water lines on Black Point Road in 1990. The franchise was approved but the final acceptance of the conditions was not signed within the 30 day timeframe required. According to the regulations, Mr. Boling has to reapply for this franchise. Sam Boling reported that he didn't file the paperwork, but everything is the same as indicated on the original franchise. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the law states that there is no franchise if the final acceptance papers are not filed. Sam Boling reported that he didn't sign the final papers and send them in because he was waiting for approval from the Department of Health before he proceeded with the water line. He will put up a bond for this franchise. Mark Huth reiterated that legally he doesn't have a franchise. There is $150 application fee which the Board can waive. Public Works Director Gary Rowe suggested that Mr. Boling submit a franchise application immediately. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 10-94 calling a special meeting of the Board of Commissioners and setting a hearing for the Boling franchise application for January 31, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford then moved to waive the franchise fee for Mr. Boling. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. . VOL 20 fAŒ 44 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Proiect No. SWI053; Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station; Fixed Price Proposals: Public Works Director Gary Rowe opened and read the proposals submitted as follows: 1. Wade Perrow Construction, Inc. and Parametrix, Inc. 2. Rognlin's, Inc. and KPG, Inc. 3. Tri State Construction, Inc. and SCS Engineers 4. Richard L. Martin, Inc. and SJO Consulting Engineers, Inc. 5. Turner Construction Company and EMCON Northwest, Inc. 6. Baugh Industrial and Bovay Northwest PROPOSAL AMOUNT: $638,768.00 650,000.00 649,000.00 940,000.00 649,855.00 683,500.00 Gary Rowe reported that the request for proposals stated that the bids would be received today and the process for evaluating the proposals will start. A short list will be prepared, the companies will be interviewed and a final recommendation will be brought to the Board for the final selection. Commissioner Wojt moved to have the Public Works Department evaluate the proposals and bring back a recommendation to the Board on February 14, 1994. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Applications for Relief from the Veterans Assistance Fund: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve two applications from the American Legion Post #26 in the amounts of $400.00 and $500.00. Commissioner W ojt seconded which carried by a unanimous vote. Juvenile & Family Court Services Director Lois Smith re: Juvenile Justice Issues: Juvenile Services Director Lois Smith reported that she has the following contracts for approval: CONTRACT #KC-041-83K, Amendment #12 re: Juvenile Detention; Kitsap County -- This contract continues the fee for juvenile detention at the same rate as in 1993. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the contract with Kitsap County for juvenile detention services for 1994. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT #2515-95291 re: Consolidated Juvenile Services Grant Funding 1993-1995 Biennium State Department of Health and Human Services - This grant contract is slightly different than the previous one, because there is a target number of placements that can be made to DJR facilities, Lois Smith reported. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve this contract as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Lois Smith reported that the negotiations for the Consolidated Juvenile Services contract have resulted in categories and amounts of funding for specific types of juvenile offenders being taken out. This has increased the flexibility of the use of these funds. This grant will help provide a range of options for juvenile services with the goal of keeping within the target for the bed weeks prescribed for DJR facilities. She then presented and explained some statistics for juvenile services programs noting that half of one of the probation officer positions is currently serving as case management for the Youth at Risk program. The discussion continued regarding the issues and problems the legislature will be dealing with during their current term. Hearin2 Examiner's Recommendation; Conditional Use Permit #IZ-34-93; Arcadia Terrace; To Construct A Multi-family Development Consistin2 of 24 Units on Five Acres; One-quarter Mile Southwest of the Port Townsend City Limits off Jacob Miller Road; Robert Ha2an, Applicant: The Board took time to read a letter from Mark Beaufait, Attorney representing William and Janet Peters, dated January 7, 1994 and submitted before the meeting. Chairman Hinton asked if the letter from Larry Fay dated September 21, 1993 as referenced by Mr. Beaufait, is part of the record? Associate Planner Jerry Smith stated that this letter was an exhibit that was presented to the Hearing Examiner. VOL 20 r~r,r 45 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked if the proposal is to interconnect five wells? Jerry Smith stated that initially the five wells will not be interconnected, but they may be at some point in the future. Commissioner Huntingford asked why five wells are to be used? Jerry Smith reported that it takes about 25 months to get a water system approved by the State and that is why the five wells are proposed for use. Commissioner Wojt asked where the septic systems are located? Alan Carmen stated that the septic systems are located at the back of each lot. He further reported that the Jefferson County PUD #1 will supply water to this project under a contractual agreement. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the only contract he has seen was signed by the former PUD Manager, but not by the PUD Commissioners. Chairman Hinton asked if the water lines are currently installed? Alan Carmen answered that they are. Mark Huth reported that the Board has to determine that appropriate provision for water has been made, and given the issues raised by Mr. Beaufait's letter, he suggested that the Board set a public hearing on this matter and ask the PUD to answer the questions raised. Commissioner Huntingford moved to set a public hearing on this matter for Tuesday January 25, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commis- sioner Wojt and called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried. Reappointment to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee: Commissioner Huntingford moved to reappoint Jim Worthington to another two (2) year term on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (his term will expire 12/02/95.) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Friday morning (January 14, 1994) at 9:00 a.m. with all Board members present. Discussion re: Draft Critical Areas Ordinance (Continued from January 4, 1994): Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that the discussion form the last meeting ended on page 17 of the Decision Making Record Memo dated December 8, 1993. Building permit exemptions need to be reviewed as part of the discussion on the use of building permits as a triggering permit for this ordinance. He then reviewed various minor building permits that the County issues: alterations (retofit of existing structures, i.e. new foundation) in which the footprint of the existing building doesn't change, permits for underground storage tanks, wood stoves, propane tanks, and additions and major renovations of structures. (All agricultural structures are exempt from the building permit process.) All of these are examples of building permits that may be good candidates for exemp- tion from the CAO, with the exception of the additions and major renovations. Structural uses that require building permits are: single family residences, commercial uses, multi- family structures, towers (i.e, towers for cellular telephones), and above ground fuel tanks. These are all uses where there may have been no previous use of the site and there is a potential for threatening critical areas. In the case of structural renovations and additions the site already has something in place on it and many of the buildings that are renovated are old and may have been built before building permits were required. It is unlikely that there would be any potential impact on a critical area. However, if its an addition to a structure that is on a hazardous site then possibly critical area review should be done. If it was on a site with a landslide hazard it will have to be reviewed, or if its in a frequently flooded area the Flood Plain Ordinance would require a review. Fish and wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge area, or wetland areas reviews could be done. If the review is done and no critical area is found, then a waiver can be issued. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has discussed the CAO with several building contractors in the last few days. In general they felt that a CAO review would be okay if an on-site review could be done at the same time as the septic system review. He suggested the possibily of a VOL 20 r~U 46 · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 checklist being developed by the County which would allow the contractor or property owner to do their own critical area review, like the SEP A checklist. Craig Ward reported that the County would still have to check the information on the checklist out. Since the waiver is an important part of the process, it can only be exercised if the County sends someone out on the site to determine that the site deserves a waiver. Commissioner Huntingford asked what would happen in the instance of a home being built in a approved plat in the County with approved sewer and water? How would the review be triggered early enough because in that case the building permit inspection wouldn't be done until the foundation was ready for inspection? Craig Ward suggested that the earliest permit required by the County would be the triggering permit for the CAO review to be done. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels some type of site review should be done on all building permits at the time of the septic system review. This should be also carried into the Com- prehensive Plan update in the spirit of protecting critical areas and also expediting the permit process as much as possible. He asked how the CAO review would be triggered on a new sub- division? Craig Ward stated that typically during SEP A review the building is restricted on slopes greater than 15 %, A subdivision review and approval would go along way toward issuing the building or septic permit or waiver because areas that couldn't be built upon will already be identified in the subdivision process. He added though that the bulk of the building in the County over the next 10 years will occur on existing plats that haven't gone through this review process. Craig Ward suggested that CAO review be required on the following types of Building permits: single family residences, commerical, multi-family residences, towers, above ground tanks and additions and renovations, Chairman Hinton asked about the types of buildings exempt from the Shoreline Management Program and under the provision of SEPA? Commissioner Wojt pointed out that it doesn't make sense to give an exemption to a single family residences in a designated critical area. The probability is that the environmental considerations can be taken into account and still allow the building. Chairman Hinton stated that he has concern that this is another layer of regulation and the cost to the County of implementing this type of process. Commissioner Wojt stated that from what he has been told of Clallam County's system, it can work without a great deal of expense. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this will override the SEP A exemption for some building permits? Craig Ward stated that this is a separate ordinance and would not affect SEP A unless the Board wants to make changes to do that in this ordinance or change the SEP A ordinance. This would mean another set of hearings. Chairman Hinton noted that he doesn't agree with this, but the other two Commissioners do. Craig Ward clarified that they will reword this section of the ordinance to include all structural building permits as triggering critical area review. Size of buffers: Commissioner Wojt stated that he feel the Board still needs to establish the basis for the size of the buffers. Commissioner Huntingford said that he feels he listed the basis for his suggested buffers (see Minutes of January 3, 1994), He added that he read and heard the testimony which included everything from no buffers to the maximum buffers suggested. He feels his suggestion was based on finding a compromise that will work. The DCD gives the County Commissioners the latitude to use their judgment in establishing these buffers, He feels he has considered many things in suggesting these buffers including how much acreage a particular buffer will take. Chairman Hinton agreed that he feels the basis for establishing the buffers suggested by Commissioner Huntingford were outlined at the last meeting, SEP A Exemptions: Craig Ward summarized the major SEP A Exemption for the Board: SEPA review is required for large activities, For many small activities the SEPA WAC's (Washington Administrative Code) give the option of exempting them from SEP A unless they are occuring in ESA's (Environmentally Senstive Areas.) ESA's are defined by the County and they are not critical areas, They are a separate issues. The County is given the latitude to review activities that are normally exempt, but could go through SEP A review because of an Environmen- tally Sensitive Area. Short plats are an example of a type of exemption that could be done on a categorical basis. There is also provision for raising the threshold for review of a specific VOL 20 r~U 47 .':':':':':':' ,,::::::::::;:::::: .':':':':':':':':':':':':': ,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:. ......ð.].. ....... ........ ....... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ....... ......... . ........ ..;:;:)!!¡i¡¡¡i!i!i!i¡i¡iiii¡irftiiiji¡iii¡¡ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . type of activty. An example of this would be excavation and filling activities. The exemption threshold could be raised from 100 cubic yards to 500 cubic yards. He then reviewed exemptions from SEP A review (that do not apply in Environmentally Sensitive Areas): · WAC 197.11.800 - Minor new construction: Includes the construction or location of any residential structure of four dwelling units. The County can raise the exemption threshold to 20 dwelling units. · The construction of a barn, milking shed, farm equipment storage building (agriculutural buildings and activities, ect.) covering 10,000 square feet to be used only by the property owner. The exemption does not apply to feed lots. This exemption threshold can be raised to 30,000 square feet. · Construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational services storage building with 4,000 square feet of floor area and associated parking facilities for 20 automobiles. This threshold can be raised from 4,000 to 12,000 square feet and from 20 automobiles to 40. · The construction of a parking lot designed for 20 automobiles. The threhold on this can be raised to 40 automobiles. ESA's include slopes greater than 15%, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, etc. but the list is not the same as the list for Critical Areas. The maps referenced for ESA's don't include the same information that Critical Area review is required to consider. Commissioner Wojt asked what it would take to bring these in line with each other? Craig Ward answered that it would require changing both ordinances (which requires public hearings) to handle these items in exactly the same way in all processes (same definitions, same maps, hearing notices, reports provided, opportunities for appeal, etc.) Craig Ward continued by noting the what he has referred as SEPA exemptions are just a part of the list in the WAC. Many of these items will be dealt with through the critical area review of building permits. One that does not get covered under this, however, is excavation activities. This has not been addressed in the past. There is no permit to be issued for this type of activity because the County doesn't have a Clearing and Grading Ordinance so this activity would not be reviewed under the CAO. Other activities that don't have triggering permits are septic tanks and landscaping. He suggested that a septic permit be added as a triggering permit for CAO review. Road building does not require a County permit and this type of activity can impact a critical area. Craig Ward recommended that septic permits be included as a triggering permit for critical area review. Commissioner Huntingford noted that septic review is done when a building permit is applied for, so adding this is not a problem. As far as the other items exempt under SEP A, those can be discussed later. Commissioner Wojt concurred that septic permits be added as a triggering permit for critical area review. Fish and Wildlife Issues: Commissioner Huntingford asked about the widlife habitat issues and if more discussion is needed on them? Craig Ward reported that issue has not been finalized yet. Commissioner HuntÌngford stated that he feels after the discussion of the Audobon information, what is in the ordinance, should be left as it is. Craig Ward said that there are other issues with fish and wildlife habitat that still need to be addressed. Both the Huth and McCutcheon memos suggest that there be discussion of why certain species identified in the minimum guidelines have not been designated in the Critical Area Ordinance. (Page 9 of Toews Memo.) Commissioner Wojt asked how habitats of local importance would be delineated? The only evidence currently available is the Audubon Society information. Craig Ward stated that there are other areas such as shellfish habitat that were not included in the CAO. Mark Huth said that having the review based on the building permit will probably cover any permits that would be exempt under the Shoreline Program. Craig Ward added that the other issue is what type of habitat is being considered for protection. If shellfish habitat is added to the fish and wildlife habitat designation, the County would be obligated to explain to the applicant, what critical area a habitat specialist would need to identify particular habitat characteristics for within the 200 foot shoreline area. Since this is a Itgenericlt habitat along the shoreline it would be difficult to go to 'JOl 20 rM,f 48 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a specialist to identify specific mitigation for protection. This would be ackward, confusing and possibly expensive. Fred Tuso noted that the Audubon Society's maps are not tied to the criteria of public health and safety. Their criteria is much broader than anything in the draft ordinance. Chairman Hinton asked if any review has been done of the issue of public health, safety and welfare and public benefit. Eric Toews reported that in drafting the ordinance they were sensitive to takings issues and substantive due process. The focus has been to produce an ordinance that was protective of the public health, safety and welfare and not an ordinance that would confer benefits to an individual or a small group of individuals. Mark Huth stated that this is really a red herring issue at this point because there are two ways it can come up. Either the ordinance as a whole could be viewed as a takings. This would mean that any piece of property in the County would be subject to being taken by this ordinance. This is so rare as to never happen. Or there could be an "as applied" challenge. This means that the way the ordinance is applied to a specific piece of property is a takings. The issue of public benefit versus protection is considered when a particular application is reviewed. The Board then reviewed Page 9 of Eric Toews' memo: Commercial and recreational shellfish areas are not covered in the ordiance - Commissioner Wojt stated that he recommends that they be included as a designated critical area. Chairman Hinton noted that these areas are protected under the Shoreline Program. Craig Ward clarified that if commercial and recreational shellfish beds are designated as critical areas, the activities that would be reviewed would be those that occur within the critical area. The upslope land uses which may impact shellfish beds would not be reviewed. The ordinance would have to be specific about how far upslope the protection of the critical area would extend. Commissioner Huntingford noted that a site review will be done on permit activities. Mark Huth stated that if the upland areas aren't mentioned in the ordinance then they will not be taken into account in the site review, unless specific language is added to identify that they be included in the review. Mark Huth asked how commercial and recreational shellfish areas would be identified? Craig Ward noted that there are maps available for both. Commissioner Huntingford stated that there were public comments that asked that these areas be designated as a resource area not a critical area. There were comments from the shellfish industry that they were concerned about regulation of their shellfish farming activities on the beach if they are designated as a critical area. The shellfish beds need to be addressed, but being a critical area may not be the way to handle them. He then asked how kelp and eelgrass fit under the public health and safety aspect of the ordinance? Craig Ward explained that he feels they fit, like many other habitat issues, under the public welfare component of the ordinance in that the community is enriched by having a diversity of habitat types. Commissioner Wojt added that they are rearing and feeding areas for salmon. Craig Ward said that if the Board is inclined to take the position that critical areas within shorelines are already regulated, then the same logic would apply to kelp and eelgrass beds. Mark Huth stated that the issue for kelp and eelgrass beds as well as for commercial and recreational shellfish beds is the effect of upslope development. The Mason County Ordinance will be reviewed for how it deals with shellfish beds. He added that the What com County ordinance uses the language in the minimum guidelines and he doesn't feel that language is specific enough. Commissioner Wojt asked if shellfish beds were discussed by the work groups? Mark Huth pointed out that the work groups recommended that the County adopt the data sources referenced in the matrix of the model policy (page 10 of Decision Making memo.) For example, they indicate for commercial and recreational shellfish beds that the following maps be used for designation: The State Department of Health Commercial Shellfish Classification Status map, the State Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Atlas, and the Puget Sound Water Quality Auth- ority's Puget Sound Environmental Atlas. The issues are: 1) should these areas be designated and 2) if they are designated, how will they be handled. The ordinance as it is drafted would require a habitat management plan for activities that occur within the critical area that trigger a permit. Naturally occuring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat: Even though these areas are exempt from the Shoreline Program, the decision needs to be made if they will be exempt from critical area review, Craig Ward explained. If there is not a triggering permit there would be no Critical Area review. Lakes themselves are not ~Ol 20 rAC/ 4:9 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wetlands. Mark Huth added that not much activity is going to be occuring on the submerged bed of a lake. Craig Ward explained that these bodies of water would not fall under the State regula- tions for waters of statewide significance. Mark Huth then read from the draft City of Tacoma Ordinance regarding shellfish areas which says "All public and private tidelands and bed lands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be designated using the Washington Department of Health's classification system. Shellfish Protection Districts shall be established pursuant to RCW 92.72." Eric Toews stated that this is an approach used by several other jurisdictions, unfortunately it is not particularly analogous to Jefferson County's situation. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels the designations suggested on page 10 of the Decision Making memo make sense. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't know where to go on this, but he doesn't feel this designation is appropriate. Chairman Hinton stated that he feels that the Shorelines Program already protects shellfish areas, eelgrass and kelp beds. Craig Ward stated that he could have Jim Pearson the County Shoreline Planner explain the type of Shoreline review for projects in these areas. The Board concurred that this section be reviewed further. Item 9 Streamside Buffers (page 17. Item 9. of Decision Making memo): The Prosecuting Attorney indicated that the record needs to be clear as to why the streamside buffer widths have been changed as proposed. Another major issue is the categorical exclusion of type 4 and 5 streams. Commissioner Huntingford said that after reading the public testimony he felt that possibly setting these widths for high and low intensity uses may be the way to go. This is similar to what the State recommends and is what was in the SEPA draft. Eric Toews reported that the SEPA draft of the ordinance adhere somewhat to what was recommended by the work groups, but it was a scaled down ordinance compared to the first draft. Commissioner Huntingford then clarified his suggestion as follows: High Intensity Use Low Intensity Use 100 feet 100 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Type 1 and 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Craig Ward asked if the buffer applies to both sides of the stream? Commissioner Huntingford answered yes. Craig Ward clarified that, for example, a 15 foot buffer width would mean 15 feet on both sides of the stream. Item 7. Page 2 (Decision Making Memo) Expansion of rememdies: Mark Huth stated that the way the ordinance is now written if someone is in violation of the ordinance, they are stopped from doing what is in violation. Wording could be added in cases where something is destroyed to require a process for either rehabilitating or recreating what was destroyed. Mark Huth noted that on a Forest Practice if an area identified as a Heron rookery is destroyed, the State Depart- ment of Natural Resources will require remedial work, possibly on another site. Just saying stop after something is destroyed is hardly a deterent. If people know that they will have to go back in and recreate something, which can be expensive, it may deter them from violating the ordinance. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would be in favor of including a penalties section that says if you violate the rules you'll be responsible to bring the area back to as close to the original condition as possible. Chairman Hinton suggested that this wording could be taken from an existing ordinance. Page 3. Item 2 Incorporation of Conservation Easement and Deed Restriction Clause Option for Critical Areas most in need of protection: Mark Huth suggested that conservation easements be left as options not made a requirement. This gives a broader range of options for people to chose from. Fred Tuso suggested that a definition be developed for a conservation easement. To give a Conservation Easement and get federal credit for it public access has to be allowed. This should VOL 20 rAU 5° Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 10, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . be voluntary as a tool that the County can use to mitigate. It has to be clear that this is a tool for a landowner. The County can't even suggest that the landowner give one. Mark Huth agreed that the County can't require that a property owner give a conservation easement. It can be used as an option for mitigation of a project. There is also reference in State statutes for a property tax break for properties in a conservation easements. The Board agreed that conservation easements be left as an option in the ordinance. Eric Toews noted (page 5 of the McCutcheon memo) that it isn't clear that the designation of geologically hazardous areas within the proposed ordinance complies with the GMA definition for these area. McCutheon noted that the GMA and minimum guidelines make reference to areas of erosion hazard, landslide hazard, seizmic hazard and other geologically hazardous areas such as coal mine and volcanic hazards. The proposed ordinance addresses erosion and landslide hazards but makes no mention of seizmic, coal mine and volcanic hazards. She suggested that the Board consider whether they are designating all geological hazard areas contemplated by GMA. Chairman Hinton noted that he doesn't think there are any coal mines or volcanos in Jefferson County. Craig Ward reported that GMA doesn't just indicate coal mines, it's any open mines. When this issue was first discussed, surface mining permits were reviewed and it was determined that there was not a significant public health, safety or welfare issue related to the presence of open mining or volcanic hazards. Commissioner Wojt added that the mines in this County are either open pit or through solid rock. Gravel extraction operations and the impact these operations have on aquifer recharge areas were then discussed. Craig Ward reported that certain types of activities in designated critical aquifer recharge areas would require an aquifer recharge study and report. Surface mining is not an activity that requires this study, however. Commissioner Huntingford asked who is in charge of permitting surface mining? Craig Ward answered that the State Department of Natural Resource is, but it is an activity that is subject to County Zoning regulations. He pointed out that there have been discussions regarding whether removal of gravel inherently threatens an aquifer. He added that he doesn't feel that it does. Chairman Hinton asked about seizmic hazards? Criag Ward reported that he isn't prepare right now to discuss this issue. The Board needs to review the maps and the classification and designation options proposed for this hazard. There are areas which are not good locations for public facilities or any facility where numbers of people will be congregated. He added that there is no known history or information of Jefferson County being subject to volcanic hazards. This review was continued to Thursday January 20, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. Request for Waiver of Solid Waste Dumpin2 Fees; State Department of Social and Health Services: Commissioner Huntingford moved to deny the request for a waiver of solid waste dumping fees as submitted by the State Department of Social and Health Services. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETI!'J6-~19VRNBD // j'.'., ~I '. , ,/ ..'i."".,.. ,. . . -...... SUL.I...I..........'~~~/.'...'.~.....'.....jIì...'...~~......,.,. '\ ..\...~....... "....:. ".'."'. \ ...: \\ ,It.· , " . .... - / 'í! \. '.' ~. .. . /' . '- Iff . . .Î.' .t,_. .~" .. '\ ), .. -.-" ~ - .' '.¡; ,-, '_...,~.'",,--,,:, -< '- . . ~' ,.' ') , 'I. ,,- JEFFERSQN COUNTY BO 0 COMMISSIONERS , v~ , Chairman ATTEST: ! MYl!11CL'~ M~- Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board VOL 20 fM' 51