HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011894
~ö~
~~ ¿j~
MINUTES
WEEK OF JANUARY 18, 1994
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioner Glen
Huntingford and Commissioner Richard Wojt were both present.
COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION:
Discussion of Proposal to Re-Or2anize the Plannin2 Department: Community Services
Director David Goldsmith submitted and reviewed a proposal for re-organization of the Planning
Department. Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the re-organization as presented by the
Community Services Director. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Hinton and
Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion while Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion.
The motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes
of December 20, 1993 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous vote.
Examination of City's Role and Authority re: Provision of Surface and Groundwater
to the Tri Area: Commissioner Huntingford moved to retain the services of AI Boucher to examine
the situation pertaining to the City's role and authority with respect to the provision of surface and
groundwater for the Tri Area. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Comments were made on the following: Residents from
the Port Ludlow area asked for reconsideration of the redesignation of property requested by Pope
Resources and that another public hearing be held on it; the Firwood RV Park project should not be
approved; and a request from the Homebuilders Association for the County to hold a public hearing
on the draft Interim Critical Areas Ordinance since the triggering permits are being changed to include
septic and structure permits.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to delete Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 and to adopt and approve the balance of the
items as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 11-94 re: 1993 Budget Transfers; Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
2. AGREEMENT re: Superior and District Court Conflict Cases; Indigent Defense for 1994
3. RESOLUTION NO. 12-94 re: Increasing the Petty Cash Fund for the Health and Human Services
Department; Increase by $20.00 for a Cash Drawer
~;
... 20"1Í~14'S
þ
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued
4. DELETE Approval of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision; Petition #6-93 for Approval of a Zone Change; Redesignate Property
from General Use to General Commercial; D.L.P. Associates, Inc.
5. DELETE Approval of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision; Petition #5-93 for Approval of a Zone Change; Redesignate Property
from General Use to General Commercial; Pope Resources
6. DELETE Approval of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision; Petition #4-93 for Approval of a Zone Change; Redesignate Property
from General Use to General Commercial; Rudy Randall, et. at.
7. DELETE Approval of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision; Petition #5-93 for Approval of a Zone Change; Redesignate Property
from General Use to General Commercial; Mark & Carol Moriarty, et. at.
8. Approval of Payment; 1994 Allocation $5,015.00; Olympic Air Pollution Control authority
9. Approval of Recreation Part Time Employee Wage Rates for 1994
10. Approval of Public Works Department Part Time Employee Wage Rates for 1994
11. 1994 Dance License; Resort at Port Ludlow
12. CONTRACT re: Advertising on Buses for Animal Services; Washington Transit Advertising
13. CONTRACT re: Construction of New Animal Shelter Project #ACF947; Fischer Construction
14. RESOLUTION NO. 13-94 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Alder Street in Irving Park
Addition; May Rashoff
15. DELETE Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; Modifying tbe Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance; BSP-ol-93; FilWood RV Park; Robert F. Sahli
16.CONTRACT, Amendment re: Consultant Work on Subdivisions; Shockey Brent, Inc.
17. CONTRACT re: Professional Services for Development Disability Employment; Skookum
Educational Programs
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS:
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Hearin2 Examiner's Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit #IZ-72-93; Construct
and Operate an Unmanned Cellular Telephone Base Station and Tower; North of Twin Lakes
in Port Ludlow; Simmons Cellular of Washin2ton, Applicant: Commissioner Huntingford moved
to approve the conditional use permit #IZ-72-93 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Hearin2 Examiner's Recommendation; Application #C2-93 to Transfer and Desi2nate
8.86 Acres as Timberland Open Space per RCW 84.34; Louis Munch and Jane McNulty,
Applicants: Commissioner Wojt asked what effect this would have on the property taxes for this
parcel? Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the property taxes would be reduced substantially
in exchange for the increased public benefit. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation to transfer and designate this property as timberland open space.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Hearin2 Examiner's Recommendation; Conditional Use Permit #IZ-66-93; Operate a
Home Business Involvin2 Metal Sculpture and Interior Metal Furnishin2s; 181 Crai2 Road,
Gardiner; Steve Lopes, Applicant: Jerry Smith reported that there are several home businesses in
the immediate area of this request. There were concerns raised by adjacent property owners
regarding parking on Craig Road and the Hearing Examiner placed a condition on the project that
the parking be on the site, The applicant has agreed to this condition.
Mr. Lopes explained his plans for the building which will minimize the noises as much as possible.
The discussion continued regarding the noise levels and the State law regarding them.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and approve
conditional use permit #IZ-66-93. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
tt ~ j~Y4 O~· ....
,'"
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Moderate Risk Waste Collection and Disposal; Port of
Port Townsend: Mter Public Works Director Gary Rowe reviewed this project, Commissioner Wojt
moved to approve the agreement with the Port of Port Townsend for a moderate risk waste collection
and disposal facility. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
Lee Tickell, Director, ClaIIam Jefferson Community Action Council re: Reactivation
of the Jefferson County Housin2 Authority: Lee Tickell, Director, Clallam Jefferson Community
Action Council explained that the State Department of Community Development has relinquished
administration and authority over the Section 8 Subsidized Housing program. This means that the
CAC must evaluate and issue the Section 8 certificates which are used for private sector rental units
to be provided for low income persons through a program of subsidized rent up to their fair market
value. The certificates could be issued through the CIallam or Kitsap Housing Authorities, but that
would mean loss of local control. The CAC receives a certain amount, per certificate, for the
administration which allows them to hire a person to oversee the program and do some other housing
programs. He then explained that any bonds issued by the Housing Authority are not considered
a debt of the County and do not constitute an indebtedness against the County's taxing authority and
levy limitations,
Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Housing Authority would be an independent body
once it is established. It can address issues such as affordable housing, etc. for the County, as well
as administering the Section 8 program. The statute requires that five commissioners be appointed
to serve five year terms which are staggered for the first Board. He suggested that the
Commissioners pass a new resolution to re-establish this Authority. The Board directed David
Goldsmith to draft a new resolution re-establishing the Housing Authority and outlining a range of
projects that the County would like to have it handle.
The Board then met in EXECUTIVE SESSION with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth
regarding potential litigation.
HEARING re: Emer2ency Bud2et Appropriations/Extensions; Various County
Departments: Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing regarding the requests from various
County departments for 1993 budget appropriations and extensions. Hearing no comments for or
against these requests, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 14-94 ordering that the
appropriations/extensions as requested by the Animal Services $2,500; Auditor $700.00; District Court
$23,645.36; Non-Departmental $1,200.00; Operating Transfer Out $70,000; Permit Center $1,500.00;
Planning & Building Department $10,000; Recreation $17,000; Superior Court Clerk $200.00; and
from the Facilities Management Fund $6,000, the Equipment Rental Fund $90,000 and the Law
Library $1,000. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to approve the application for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund in the
amount of $300.00 from the American Legion. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Preliminary Subdivision; Subdivision of 7.9 Acres as a 20 Lot
Residential Subdivision; LP07-93; Located in Chimacum at the Southwest Corner of Rhody
Drive and Anderson Lake Road; Rhododendron Estates: Tom Graves and Steve Gratzer,
Applicants: Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing, explained 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.
. ,~... ~ 20 fA(i~145
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q)
Q)
Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue?
A) All three Board members answered no.
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.
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.
Q)
Q)
Jerry Smith reported that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation was forwarded to the Board on
January 3, 1994 when the Board set this hearing to discuss the following issues further - bus pullout
location, school walking conditions and school bus turnarounds. He then noted that all of the
information submitted to the Hearing Examiner is being entered as part of the record for this hearing.
He reported that there is also a letter, received today, from Anders Edgerton opposing this application.
Commissioner Wojt asked if the proposed development is buffered along Rhody Drive? Jerry Smith
reported that the County owns a strip of land between the Highway 19 right-of-way and this site.
The County's property is 40 feet wide at the intersection of Anderson Lake Road and Rhody Drive
and the property broadens to 215 feet wide at the other end. Commissioner Wojt asked if the pull-
out for the Transit buffers would be on the County's property? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth
reported that the pullout will probably be on State highway right-of-way. The issue is how people
using the Transit will get from the pullout to this project. He noted that the County can give an
easement across its property to the Transit Authority for a pathway to this project. The Transit
Authority would then work with the project proponent to construct the Transit pullout and the walking
access to it from the project.
Commissioner Huntingford asked Marsha Harris, Chimacum School District Superintendent, if the
wider turn around in the subdivision would be required if the transit pullout can be developed?
Marsha Harris reported that the turnaround in the subdivision only needs to be two feet wider than
proposed and she doesn't feel there was any issue about that provision.
Mark Huth asked Ryan Tillman if there were any other conditions that the proponent didn't agree
with? Ryan Tillman answered that the proponents felt that they didn't necessarily agree with the
condition, but they feel they have stated their concerns through the process, and have agreed with the
conditions. They felt strong enough about the Open Space becoming an eyesore and problem that
they will pay fees in lieu of it.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the school walking routes? Ryan Tillman stated that the issue
is that "safe" walking routes to the school be provided. He explained that the concern is for how
the proponents can assure the safety of walkers. The street is being opened for a water line, so a
pathway can be built, and traffic safety can be addressed. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained
after reviewing the condition, that what is meant is traffic safety. Ryan Tillman stated if making it
safe means lighting or paving Sutton Street that is an improvement that was not anticipated by the
proponent. If it means just opening the walkway, that isn't a problem. Mark Huth stated that
requiring pavement and lighting would probably be beyond the scope of this type of project. Ryan
Tillman added that Sutton Street is not developed and they would need to know what is necessary
for opening it and how wide it would have to be opened.
Jeff Hamm, Jefferson Transit, reported that they support the Hearing Examiner's recommendation.
They provide a fairly high level of Transit service on SR19 at that location. Ryan Tillman reported
that he will prepare a plan for the pullout and submit it to the State and the Transit Director will
support it through that process.
Mark Huth suggested that the Hearing Examiner's condition 1 be amended to read "the proponent
shall participate in creating a Transit pull out on the west side of SR19." Commissioner Wojt asked
about the concern regarding the water availability? Ryan Tillman reported that he feels that the City
would have a hard time denying water to this project because of appeals and hearings that were
continued. The feedback he has had from the City PublÌc Works Department indicates that there
would probably be no problem.
~.. 20 fAr;~ 146
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hearing no further public comments the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the preliminary subdivision as recommended by the
Hearing Examiner with a change to the wording of Condition 1 as suggested by the Prosecuting
Attorney. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on
Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. All three Commissioners were present.
Discussion re: Draft Critical Areas Ordinance (Continued from January 14, 1994):
Craig Ward reported that two items needed follow up from the last discussion: 1) consideration of
classification, designation, and protection of seismic hazard as mentioned in the McCutcheon
memorandum, and 2) to review the hearing testimony to make sure that there aren't any remaining
issues that haven't been covered. David Young was present to go through the information that has
been mapped.
Classification, designation, and protection of seismic hazard areas: The minimum guidelines indicate
that seismic hazard areas shall include areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake
induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction or surface faulting. One of the
indicators of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of earthquake damage in the past.
Ground shaking is effected by: the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the source of an
earthquake, the type of thickness of geologic materials at the surface, and the type of subsurface
geologic structure. There is quite a bit of geologic information for this County that relates to
earthquakes. David Young then reviewed the information available that has been mapped. He
explained that liquefaction is the ability, because of soils and geology, of the elements to liquify.
The map indicates that portions of Quilcene, Brinnon, the Discovery Bay commercial area, Four
Corners, Airport Cutoff, the Port Townsend Paper Company mill site, and a log dump in Irondale are
in areas that the work groups felt should be designated for seismic hazard. There are also areas that
could be considered for a seismic hazard when the soils are saturated. These areas would have the
risk of amplifying seismic waves and ground shaking rather than liquefaction.
Chairman Hinton said that the most important thing is that public facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.)
not be developed in these areas. Craig Ward reported that in the review of protection options, single
family residences have been exempted because it is felt that there is already protection for them and
because there was testimony that single family residences are one of the safest places to be in an
earthquake. There has not been any serious consideration to including single family residences or any
reason to propose reduction in density in earthquake hazard areas. The ordinance would require a
geologic investigation from a qualified soil engineer and/or geologist for commercial, industrial or
multifamily permits (all structural permits subject to zoning.) Chairman Hinton suggested that an
advisory could be offered to single family residences. Craig Ward reported that in some of the areas
identified as earthquake hazard, there are wetlands and it's unlikely that there would be a significant
amount of construction within those areas. He agreed that an advisory in some form would be
helpful. There was no testimony received in the public hearing regarding earthquake or seismic
hazards. He asked if the Board would like any changes made to the draft ordinance?
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to see the requirement for a geologic
investigation for public facilities in the designated and mapped areas. There was a consensus of the
Board that this be done. Craig Ward clarified that the designation criteria used in the map reviewed
will be adopted and a geo-technical report will be required in these areas for public facilities only.
Review the hearing testimony (as summarized by Planning Staff 12/14/93) to make sure that there
aren't any remaining issues that haven't been covered: Craig Ward asked the Board if there were
any areas of concern that the Board feels were not covered during this review? Commissioner
Huntingford asked if there was a dollar amount established in the definition of a structure? Craig
Ward answered that the definition of structure from the Uniform Building Code will be used.
In Section 3, 3.3 - Use of building permit as a CAO triggering permit. Commissioner Huntingford
stated that he feels the intent is to keep the CAO review as simple as possible. When lots in a
subdivision are ready for building, and the subdivision has been through a critical area review, he
asked if the lots would be subject to another CAO review? Craig Ward reported that there is a
--
20 fAf,,147
'.
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
provision for a waiver of the CAO review and this could be a clear case for such a waiver to be
issued. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that when a subdivision is approved, there is no requirement
in the subdivision review that a plan of where the structures will be located on the lots be provided.
A critical area could be impacted by building on a specific lot. Craig Ward reported that is correct,
but the edges of the critical areas in a subdivision could be identified on the plat map and as long
as a structure doesn't impinge on it, there shouldn't be a problem. The discussion continued
regarding the mapped critical areas, how the maps will be used, and how the triggering permit process
will be implemented.
Chairman Hinton noted that he feels one definition that needs to be improved is "grading. 11 The
definition currently says "any 11 excavation. This limits what can be done. Craig Ward reported that
these activities would be subject to a triggering permit. He asked if the Board would like to set a
threshold for grading activities? Chairman Hinton suggested what the UBC (Uniform Building Code)
minimum threshold of 50 yards be used. The SEPA threshold, Craig Ward reported, is 100 yards,
however there is no triggering permit for this activity unless it is in conjunction with a building
permit.
Recreational and Commercial Shellfish and Eelgrass Areas: Craig Ward reported that shellfish and
eelgrass beds still need to be addressed. Chairman Hinton suggested that BMP's (Best Management
Practices) could be used as protection for these areas. He asked what more protection is needed?
Commissioner Wojt added that protection is needed from those activities that are done outside the
shellfish areas themselves, that would impact shellfish beds. Craig Ward reported that if there is a
significant project over the water it would require a hydraulics permit, and if it's a commercial,
industrial or multifamily activity it would be covered by zoning. This protection will be there even
though the shellfish areas and kelp and eelgrass areas haven't been designated as critical ares. There
are projects that fall below minimum thresholds that are exempt from the Shoreline permit process.
These uses are exempt because they are either a relatively benign use or the scale of the use is
considered benign. On a cumulative basis these projects could have an impact. He suggested that
if these projects are to be controlled, then these areas should be designated as critical areas and the
Shoreline Program should be amended to eliminate the exemption.
Commissioner Huntingford said that there were 10 comment letters that shellfish and oyster tidelands
not be included and six letters that recommended that they be included as critical areas. These
comments pointed out that shellfish and oyster beds are protected through septic and shoreline
regulation. He agreed with Chairman Hinton, that since single family residences and septic systems
will be triggering permits, upland protection is provided. He doesn't see any reason to list shellfish
beds as critical areas, when the protection has to come from the upland uses.
Craig Ward reported that the minimum guidelines indicate that shellfish beds can be considered as
agricultural lands. Chairman Hinton noted that the new Puget Sound Water Quality Authority's new
regulations which come into effect on July 1, require that there be stormwater control plans for any
projects which include over 5,000 square feet of grading. Craig Ward reported that he believes this
requirement is currently in force. He suggested that the CAO reference the Puget Sound Water
Quality guidelines for erosion control plans for activities that include clearing and grading. The
Board concurred that this requirement be referenced in the CAO.
Designation of Habitats of Local Importance: Craig Ward reported that there were two references
suggested for use in designating habitats of local importance: 1) the Audubon study, and 2) State
Priority Habitats and Species. It was determined that the Audubon map would not be used. The
State PHS has management guidelines for each of the species with adopted maps of where the species
and habitats are located. The Planning Commission and work groups recommended that the State
PHS be used for designation of these critical areas. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there has
been any research done on how fish and wildlife habitat areas fit into the public health and safety
concerns of the ordinance? Craig Ward answered that the position of the Planning staff is that
designating these areas is for the public health, safety and welfare.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels that shellfish, kelp, eelgrass and herring and smelt
spawning areas go hand in hand with the other activities on the shoreline and he doesn't feel that
they should be designated as critical areas, because there are adequate regulations now to protect
these areas.
V" 20 up: 148
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The discussion turned back to the fish and wildlife habitat and the State Priority Habitats and Species.
Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Hinton agreed that they feel that the habitat protection from
the State provided for endangered species is adequate for Jefferson County. Commissioner Wojt
asked what a habitat of local importance would be that isn't protected by the designations already
made? Commissioner Huntingford reported that buffers on streams, wetlands, etc. have already been
designated. Lower densities than are currently established are being considered which will mean
more protection, and resource lands will be designated also. Craig Ward reported that there are very
few areas of priority habitat in the County that aren't for endangered species. The largest area is the
Elk habitat down by the Dosewallips.
Craig Ward asked if the Board wants to designate as habitats of local importance the areas on the
State Priority Habitats and Species list? These are areas where the State Department of Wildlife has
determined that there are important indigenous species. The Board concurred that these areas be
designated as critical areas.
Protection in the West End: Craig Ward reported that there would be areas designated using the
criteria established, in the West End. These areas would be designated through the use of the soils
maps or the maps for Priority Habitat and Species. Senior Planner James Holland reported that
Pacific County used State regulations to allow variations in regions of the County. Specific regions
of the County must be identified, however, to do this. Pacific County used DNR watersheds to make
this split. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there is a geographical boundary in Jefferson County.
Chairman Hinton asked if the West End can be excluded from this regulation because of the lack
of development? Craig Ward answered that the West End is excluded because of the lack of
information. There are no maps and no areas have been referenced. He feels that the County would
be on weak ground if they categorically excluded the West End from these regulations.
Craig Ward pointed out that because there is very little development activity in the West End, there
is no triggering permit and therefore no Critical Areas Review. He added that there are some
subdivision and zoning applications, but they are few and far between. Commissioner Wojt stated
that he feels the West End should be included in these regulations for the interim until they develop
their specific community plan.
Chairman Hinton suggested that only subdivision permits be used as critical area triggering permits
in the West End and that building permits for single family structures not be a triggering permit.
Commissioner Huntingford agreed with that suggestion. He added that if the West End is to be
included under these regulations, the residents would expect the Board to hold a hearing in their area.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if a community plan can set different buffer widths for specific
critical areas, than the ones set in the CAO? Craig Ward answered that the Community Plans may
be different than what is in the CAO, but that will be the Board's choice. The County will have to
have proof for setting a different buffer width (for example) in a specific area, such as the West End.
Craig Ward asked if the Board is directing that subdivisions be the only triggering permits for the
West End? Commissioner Huntingford stated that is acceptable to him. Commissioner Wojt stated
that he does not agree with that and he asked for an opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney about
whether this can be done or not.
Craig Ward asked if the Board had any other areas of concern that haven't been covered yet?
Commissioner Wojt asked about aquifer recharge areas? Craig Ward reported that the 1990 census
was referenced as the basis for designation of aquifer recharge areas. Commissioner Wojt stated that
the problem with that is that if population is increasing in some of the more susceptible areas, they
wouldn't be protected, but may need to be. Craig Ward recommended that, if this is a major concern
of the Board, that the Planning Department be directed to start a study, the results of which would
be implemented in a permanent ordinance regulating aquifer recharge areas.
The consensus of the Board was that no changes be made to the aquifer recharge section. The
population figures will be reviewed again when the Comprehensive Plan is updated.
Lesa Barnes then reviewed topics raised in the comments on the draft ordinance, especially from other
governmental agencies, as follows:
· Section 4 Administrative Authority - Comments indicated that there are too many layers and not
enough time for the Public Works and Planning Department to process everything. Commissioner
Wojt stated that he feels that the County needs to try and make the process as user friendly as
VJ 20 f4(·t4~
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
possible in terms of getting the protection for the environment without overburdening applicants.
He feels the County must commit the money and staff to take care of the required steps in a
timely manner. Commissioner Huntingford added that he wants to review what these processes
will cost the County in time and money. He suggested that wording be added to the ordinance
to indicate that once a parcel has been through the CAO process it will not have to be reviewed
again under that process.
· Section 9, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, Increasing Buffer Widths - Comments suggested that
fishery stocks that have been identified at risk should be specifically listed as a rationale for
requiring increased buffers under this section. Commissioner Huntingford noted that he feels the
County has the option to increase/decrease the buffer widths. If there is a project that the State
commented on that increased buffers are necessary, then the County can use that as part of the
rationale for increasing the buffer on a particular project. Chairman Hinton stated that they have
considered this testimony and feel it is included in the purpose of the ordinance.
Lesa Barnes asked if frequently flooded areas have been adequately addressed? Chairman Hinton
stated that the County's Flood Plain Ordinance is referenced and it is not consistent with the DOE
Manual on flood plains. Commissioner Huntingford added that this ordinance can still be referenced
and then appropriate changes will be made to it. She then referred to the comment submitted by
Puget Power which contained specific recommendations. Chairman Hinton explained that the
Commissioners have read these comments and they have been addressed adequately.
The State Department of Fisheries suggested that the ordinance does not provide adequate protection
for near shore marine resources and habitats, Lesa Barnes noted. Craig Ward explained that they are
referring to shellfish, eelgrass and kelp beds and those have been addressed.
.
Section 10, Special Reports - The State Department of Ecology commented that the 10 day period
for these reports is not sufficient to allow transmittal and proper review by them and they suggest
that the time period be extended to 21 days. Commissioner Wojt stated that changing this time
frame for subdivisions may make sense, but it would be a different matter for an individual
residences. Commissioner Huntingford stated that if a project comes through the process and no
encroachment on a critical area is found, then that project has been through the process. If there
is encroachment on the critical area then there would be more process time because the critical
area would have tq be reviewed.
Chairman Hinton asked if the change in the ordinance requiring that septic and building permits as
triggering permits, is a substantial enough change to require another hearing? Craig Ward reported
that he would review this with the Prosecuting Attorney. The Planning staff will make the changes
indicated by the Board and ask the Prosecuting Attorney for his opinion about the changes.
. :..,.
MEETING ADJOURNED
SEAL:
... 20 U!,: 15~