Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011193 , , c..t~ ~ö~ MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 11, 1993 Chairman Wojt called the meeting to order. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. Commissioners' Briefin2 Session: Community Services Director David Goldsmith briefed the Board on the progress on a one stop permit center to accept and coordinate all development permits. The Center's function is to take the application for a permit and to track it through the required processes until it is completed. Individual offices will still issue the required permits. The Center will be supported by the Building Department, Environmental Health, Planning (land use and shoreline sections) and Public Works (roads) Departments. Case management is still to be determined. David Gold- smith reported that he will oversee the operation of the Center and will be developing the job descriptions and a training program for Center staff. There will be three support staff people assigned to the Permit Center as well as 2 1/2 people from the Building Section of the Planning Department, one person from the Planning Section of the Planning Department, and one person from Public Works (roads). Environmental Health is located adjacent to the Center, in the Health Department, so no one will be moved for that function. Mari Phillips asked if the Center will be able to advise about required State permits on a project? David Goldsmith reported that the Center's emphasis is County permits, but they will have information on the State permits needed and contacts for those permits. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to see one staff person assigned to handle an individual project until the project is completed. Doug Simpson stated that the Commissioner's need to set a definite timeline for this Center to be started. David Goldsmith reported that the personnel will be identified and job descriptions will be done by March 1. Whether some of the equipment is ready by that time is the question. Gary Rowe reported that some of the equipment takes a period of time to receive after being ordered. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes of January 4, 1993 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. .Ut. 19 ~,\{)~ (1- 21 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 2 Prosecutin2 Attorney Mark Huth re: Elected Officials Salaries: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that he feels that all of the elected officials should be given the same percentage increase in salary. Gary Rowe presented the figures for giving all of the elected officials a 3% increase. Assessor Jack Westerman reported that the average annual salary for Elected Officials in 38 of the 39 Washington Counties is $42,300. The initial proposal for the 1993 budget was that Elected Officials get the same increase that was given to the District 1 and 2 Commissioners. He agreed with the recommendation that all the elected officials be given a 3% increase and suggested that a citizens committee could be established in the future to look at elected officials salaries and make a recommendation for increases. Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels the increases should be fair, and then moved to give all the Elected Officials (except the District and Superior Court Judges and the Commissioners) a three percent increase in salary for 1993. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Auditor Mary Gaboury urged the Board to continue to work on an equitable way to address salaries for mid-managers. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to delete Item 1 and then adopt and approve the rest of the items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Delete RESOLUTION NO. _ re: Establishing the Prosecuting Attorney's Salary for 1993. 2. Approve Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; On-Site Septic System; Randolph Ulberg 3. Denial of Claim #C-14-92 as Recommended; John Maher $470.00 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2-93 re: Imposing Load Limits on County Roads, Pursuant to RCW 36.75.270 and 46.44.080 5. EASEMENT NO. 50-CR3306 re: Portion of the Right-of-Way for Realignment of the South Bogachiel Road Slide (CR0606); State Department of Natural Resources 6. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Anthony J. D' Andrea $500.00 7. AGREEMENT re: Superior and District Court Indigent Defense Conflict Cases for 1993; Harold J. Caldwell 8. Chairman to Sign Letter to Washington State Department of Community Development re: Jefferson County Local Emergency Planning Committee AppointmentJReappointment Recommendations PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: An industrial recovery program for solid waste was presented to the Board and discussion continued regarding the possibility of the County handling its own garbage by using this program. The funding for the Olympic Discovery Trail from the ITSEA and IAC grants and how the funding is accepted and shown in the County's budget. The One Stop Permit Center concept was discussed with examples of how long it takes currently for some of the permitting processes. The discussion continued regarding the permit process and requirements being made on applications that are not legal and are not formally adopted policies. The need for an inventory of current permits and how long they have been in the County's process was suggested. ',lot 111 ¡.. "~fi2 1. '\3 fAf,~ ~~ ¡f "'~:4I " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 3 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS WATER QUALITY Teresa Barron. Water Quality Specialist re: Briefin2 on the Draft Port Ludlow Watershed Action Plan: Water Quality Specialist Teresa Barron briefed the Board on the SEP A review draft of the Port Ludlow Watershed Action Plan. The revised draft needs to be reviewed by the Board and final determinations made on the recom- mendations presented by the Ludlow Watershed Committee. The plan was prepared, by the Committee, under the guidance of the State Department of Ecology and facilitated by the County. At this point in time the water quality and environmental health in the Ludlow Watershed is generally high. Studies have been conducted by the State Department Fisheries, the Point No Point Treaty Council, the State Department of Health, Jefferson County and Harding, Lawson and Associates (a consultant working for Pope Resources). The studies indicate that there is a moderate problem with sediments and a moderate problem with bacterial contamination. Some of the worse spots are: Mats Mats Bay which has some fecal coliform contamination, and the north fork of Ludlow Creek where fecal coliform co- ntamination originates through pasture areas. The shoreline in this watershed is develo- ping rapidly which can contribute to sediment and erosion problems. Most of the salmon rearing streams, like Shine Creek, have been impacted in some way. The Ludlow Watershed Management Committee recommends support and supplements to existing programs as a solution to these moderate problems. A variety of strategies to address the non-point source pollution problems are proposed including: 1. public education, 2. increased enforcement of existing regulations or adoption of new regulations, 3. supporting programs and projects designed to reduce pollution (operations and maintenance actions), 4. field monitoring (monitoring actions). The highest priority problems identified by the Committee are: runoff, erosion, stormwater and fecal coliform bacteria. The plan recommendations and implementation were developed by a process of consensus, as required by the State Department of Ecology which requires annual or biennial audits of the plan. The Committee is asking that every implementing entity issue a brief annual report on the progress on their portion of the implementation. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the recommendation will be funded? Teresa Barron reported that the funding is basically from existing staff and budgets. The total estimated cost of all 45 recommendations is not known because 14 of the 45 have an unknown cost estimate. $359,950.00 is the cost of implementing the 31 remaining recommendations. Of that amount, $117,450.00 represents new costs. None of the recommendations can be implemented unless the identified entities concur that the work be done. The implementing entities can decline to implement a recommendation or they can ask that the timeline for implementation be changed. The Committee has asked for a response from the implement- ing agencies by January 18, 1992. Chairman Wojt reported that the Board will review the information presented. Patti Sullivan. Dou2 Simpson and Karen Erickson re: Shoreline Prouam Amendments: Doug Simpson stated that the County Commissioners need to be concerned with the shoreline in Port Townsend because: 1) the Commissioners are each elected to represent the whole County, 2) Port Townsend is the commercial center of the County and the County seat, vet :,'---- 23 19 f'AŒ :.' 0--, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 4 3) Port Townsend consumes an inordinate proportion of the County's budget, and 4) The County, by it's control over the Shoreline Management Master Program, must insure that changes to it are fair, legal and represent the intent of the Shoreline Management Act. He then reviewed the background of the Shoreline Act which is to protect and regulate the shoreline (RCW 9.58). He noted that the local shoreline master program (adopted in March of 1979) has a goal of reflecting unique shoreline conditions in development requirements that exist and are expected to exist in the County. The local program determines if a specific use is permitted to be primary, secondary, conditional or prohibit- ed. If a use is determined to be conditional, the State Department of Ecology will make a final determination on the merits of the project. In other words, if you don't want some project, the tendency is to make it conditional and then the DOE will give it the kiss of death. There are four main legal concepts used by the State and local planners to regulate the shoreline: 1) whether the waters are navigable, 2) the doctrine of custom which deals with the uninterrupted public use of a particular piece of property over a long period of time, 3) prescription - the public use on a certain property for more than 10 years, and 4) the Public Trust Doctrine - which says that individual states can hold certain natural resources in trust for the people. Mr. Simpson then cited Nolan v the State of California, a 1978 decision by the Supreme Court which questions the right of regulation of the shoreline. In his discussion of the legal term "nexus" he stated that a single family or multi-family housing project on the shoreline does not increase the public demand to use the shoreline. Another issue the County should consider is liability. If public access is required as a permit condition, the government agency will have to deal with the assumed liability associated with public access. He asked if the County has insurance in force to cover this liability, but noted that he feels it is the responsibility of the State since they have mandated these public accesses. He then reviewed actions taken by the City with regard to the proposed amendments to the City/County Shoreline Program. He explained the actions, and reviewed the timeline by which the City and the County acted on the proposed Shoreline Program amendments. He added that this timeline did not leave much time for public input because it was very short. Mr. Simpson continued by saying that the amendments to the Shoreline Management Program were said to be changes to accommodate the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront plan. He argued that the matrix shows that multi-family use was changed from Primary to Conditional in urban waterfront areas in the County. This is a change which will directly effect areas of the County. He then reviewed the matrix and how it would be interpreted, explaining that it is confusing. He feels that it is evident that the County has not been forthright in letting the public know that there have been changes made in the Shorelines Management Plan which will effect the County. The hearing notice described no change effecting the County. Doug Simpson asked that the Board consider the following recommendations: * Replace Dennis McLerran as the legal counsel for the Shoreline Commission * Remove Frank D' Amore from the Shoreline Commission * Remove the conditional use designation for multi-family housing in urban shoreline areas. * The possibility of legal action against the City for misrepresentation of facts, appearance of fairness, lack of impartiality in a quasi-judicial function and conflict of interest, should be investigated. * Need to investigate the possibility of withdrawing from the agreement with the City on the proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Program before DOE's hearing scheduled for February 3, 1993 in Port Townsend. 'JQt 19 UŒ ~,o.~- 4') >1, .¡(wi ,~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 5 Commissioner Huntingford asked if these changes were really made in the multi-family uses in the County? Jim Pearson stated that the existing Shoreline Management Master Program has an Urban Shoreline designation which covers not only the City but also the Port Townsend Mill, lower Irondale (log dump), lower Port Hadlock, the Alcohol Plant, Port Ludlow, the log dump on Quilcene Bay and the Coast Oyster Hatchery in Quilcene. Within the City of Port Townsend there is the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District. He explained that there is an inconsistency between the use classification matrix and the language in the Master Program Urban section. During the City's review of the Bay Vista Condominium project, the inconsistency between the use matrix, which indicates that residential development in the urban area as a primary use, and the policy language in the Urban section. The Department of Ecology was asked for an opinion. They advised that the language in the Urban section would prevail over the use classification in the matrix. Jim Pearson reported that he reviewed the proposed changes to see how they would effect the County. He was concerned about the inconsistency and he advised the Shoreline Commission to either change the policy language in the Urban section, or the use matrix. The Shoreline Commission recommended changing residential development to a conditional use with the proviso that single family residences on existing lots be a primary use. Jim Pearson reported that he checked with the State Department of Ecology and in order to change the Board's action on this amendment a public hearing must be held first. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there was any public participation from County residents in the development of these changes? Jim Pearson reported that the Shoreline Commission, which works for the County and the City, held a hearing and the City Council and the County Commissioners held a joint hearing on the proposed amendments. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that he was at a meeting with the City Attorney and City Planners where Jim Pearson vehemently argued against the changes that the City wanted to make. The City presented a letter from the State Department of Ecology which said that with regard to the discrepancy between the language of the plan and the use matrix, the language in the plan controls. The use matrix is illustrative and can be used for guidance, but doesn't have any binding effect. The language in the plan says that residential development in an urban area is a conditional use. The Shoreline Commission was advised of this and they recommended that the use matrix be brought in line with the program language. The County's portion of the Shoreline Program was not changed it was clarified. When this issue came up before the prior Board of Commissioners, Mark Huth reported that he wrote them a memo explaining that. What the City did to the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront District is the City's business. It is a joint Shoreline program, but in the WAC's it is listed as a Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program. The City Council is in charge of their portion of the program. The County can concur or not concur in the proposed amendments. Mark Huth continued by explaining that the suggestion for a conflict of interest by Frank D' Amore is something the Commissioners should consider, but the amendments to the Shoreline program are a legislative matter, not a quasi-judicial matter, so conflict of interest doesn't apply. Conflict of interest also doesn't apply since the Shoreline Commis- sion is an advisory body, that only makes recommendations to the Board and the City Council. Whether or not the City Council, acting in their legislative capacity, has violated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine or the Conflict of Interest principles is their issue to defend. The County doesn't have the power to even look into those questions. If the County considered legal action against the City with regard to these amendments, it would be hard to separate the County's action from the City's for such a suit. The County cannot instruct the City on how development in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront areas should take place. The City and the Department of Ecology have the power to divide the Shoreline Management Master Program so that Port Townsend and the County, each have a separate program. ~(}t 19 ~AJl i~ 'ft I") t·· ;e;..c:> Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 6 Doug Simpson argued that the County relinquished control in this amendment. In Section 8, Program Revisions, the wording before the amendment was ". . . and upon favorable recommendation of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the Port Townsend City Council," In the amendment the wording was changed to ". . . provided however, that any revision or adjustment which applies only within the City or within the County need not be submitted for recommendation to the unaffected jurisdiction." He feels that previously the County had control through the approval process. The City contains two major port facilities and the County has a vested interest to protect these facilities. Jim Pearson noted that according to the Department of Ecology the port areas within the City are under the legislative and permit authority of the City. All Port properties in the County (the boat launch and dock at Port Hadlock, the Quilcene Boat Haven, etc.) would be under the County's legislative and permit authority. Mark Huth advised that all of the concerns expressed here should be given to the Depart- ment of Ecology at their hearing on February 3, 1993. If the Board wants to reconsider the amendments as passed on to the Department of Ecology, then the Board should set a public hearing, take public comment, and then develop findings of fact and conclusions to back that decision. The Department of Ecology could then be asked to remand the changes back to the Board for reconsideration. He suggested that if ~his is how the Board wants to proceed, they should write to the Department of Ecology and ask them not to have their public hearing on February 3, 1993. Bernie Arthur stated that the only letter he received is from the State Department of Community Development which is in favor of this amendment. The County should make regulations that the average, reasonable person can understand and abide by. He feels that the Shoreline Management Master Program and the amendment should satisfy this requirement. The purpose of the Shoreline program is to protect the water and shoreline environment from pollution and degradation, but it's become a zoning ordinance. He added that the County Commissioners need to decide whether or not they want to spend the taxpayers money on something that is hard to understand and poorly constructed. The County can back out of this shoreline program amendment. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the pending law suits regarding the shoreline program amendments are against the City and the County? Mark Huth reported that the law suits are against both because both passed on the amendment. If the law suit, is successful then the City would be required to change their portion of the shoreline program. He explained that since this is a policy matter, he doesn't feel that the Court would order the County to go back to the previous use matrix which is not in agreement with the text of the Shoreline program. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the County would be responsible if damages were awarded? Mark Huth explained that the County would not be responsible for damages awarded to residents of the City. After discussion of how the administration of the Shoreline Management Master Plan for the County and the City is handled, Bernie Arthur stated that he believes that the Shoreline Program has become a direction Planning Departments are trying to take to create zoning without any public input. This amendment was basically put through by a couple members of the Shoreline Commission who wanted to control what happened in the Point Hudson area. This makes the County responsible because the Board appoints the Shoreline Commission members and then acts on their advise. He reported that he has letters from the City Attorney and the City Planning Department which indicate that even they can't interpret this amendment. Patti Sullivan interjected that this amendment has made all commercial business outside of the Port Townsend Historic Commercial District conditional uses. Commissioner Hinton added that the businesses on Port property that are not marine related are also conditional uses. Jim Pearson explained that the Shoreline jurisdiction only applies to properties within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark. The Shoreline Act covers all marine waters, lakes greater than 20 acres in size and streams with a mean annual flow of greater than 20 cubic feet per second. VOL ,1m ~A~ '=0 26 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 7 Commissioner Hinton asked if Jim Pearson is the Shoreline Planner for the County and the City? Jim Pearson answered that, by agreement reached several years ago, the City now administers the Shoreline plan for permits within the City because they have planning staff available and because they have their own ordinances. The City Council appoints two members of the Shoreline Commission and the County Commissioners appoint the rest of the members. Mark Huth explained that in his review of the Shoreline Act, the Master Program, and the case law, there is no way that the County will be given authority over the City shorelines. The City is a separate jurisdiction. Bernie Arthur stated that he believes that the County is in this program and is therefore responsible. The County needs to decide whether they want to continue to be responsible. Commissioner Hinton stated the County has to represent the people and all regulations should have early and continuous input before approval. He explained that he doesn't believe there was enough public input on this shoreline amendment. The amendment is so confusing and open to interpretation and it needs to be made clearer. Chairman Wojt asked that the Board members keep in mind that the process for adoption of this amendment took longer than three weeks and the County's process was separate and distinct from the City's process. Mark Huth added that the DOE has indicated that if the County withdraws their action, they would still go ahead with consideration of the City's amendment to the Master Program. After further discussion of the impact to the Port property within the City, Commissioner Huntingford asked Jim Pearson if this amendment is more of a zoning plan than it is for shoreline protection? Jim Pearson reported that the Shoreline Act has many purposes which include protecting water quality, wildlife and natural resource production, increase public access, and provide for coordinated planning, etc. Karen Erickson stated that throughout the public meetings and hearings, City Council members or City Planning staff made the statement that the DOE had already approved the amendment, which gives little hope for public testimony. It's been stated publicly at several meetings that the DOE is agreement with what the City hopes to do with this ordinance. Commissioner Hinton moved that: 1) the City and County jointly, and/or independently, request DOE to postpone the scheduled public hearing for February 3, 1993 regarding the amendment to the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program (Council Or- dinance No. 2320 and County Resolution No. 106-92) and further delay any action on this matter pending completion of a full County review, identifying but not limited to, lack of public input, whether proper procedures were followed, whether sufficient environmental review was conducted and whether certain amendments intended to apply within the City would impact County-wide, 2) the Jefferson County Planning Department shall immediately schedule a public hearing prior to February 3 regarding the shoreline amendment, and 3) request concurrence of the City to designate Jefferson County as lead agency to re-evaluate the threshold determination and determine if a full environmental impact statement is necessary. Commissioner Huntingford asked who makes the threshold determination for the City? Mark Huth answered that the City Council is the SEP A responsible official. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion and Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. ',lot 19': rAfir \,: D~ 2'1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 8 Jim Pearson reported that notice of a public hearing on a shoreline plan amendment must be published three times. Commissioner Huntingford moved to set a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Shoreline program for 7:00 p.m. on February 1, 1993 in the Superior Court Courtroom. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. When the meeting reconvened after lunch, Jim Pearson reported that the City Council has a public hearing scheduled on February 1, 1993 that he needs to attend. The Board discussed whether it was necessary to have Jim Pearson present at this hearing. Commis- sioner Hinton moved to amend his previous motion setting the hearing for February 2, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Superior Court Courtroom. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Hinton then moved to set a time limit of five minutes for each person presenting oral testimony and that written testimony will be accepted until the close of the hearing. The Clerk of the Board will purchase a timer to be used at the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING HEARING re: Appeal of a Final Threshold Determination; Schoper Short Subdivision SP14-92; Christine Schoper. Applicant: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Department Director is the responsible official for SEP A threshold determinations. This short plat was subject to SEP A review because of steep slopes (in excess of 15% and/or unstable slopes) on the site are environmentally sensitive areas. A mitigated determination of non-significance was issued for this short plat. The applicant submitted an appeal of this determination. This is a "de novo" hearing for that appeal, which means that the Board reviews all of the information (environmental checklist, etc) and then makes a new threshold determination. Commissioner Wojt noted that the applicant is only appealing one particular mitigative measure. Jerry Smith answered that the applicant is appealing one mitigative measure that relates to question number 46 on the environmental checklist. This question asks if there are any parts of the site designated as environmentally sensitive. The answer to that question was yes. It also relates to question 50 which addresses mitigation to determine compatibility with the environmentally sensitive designation on the site. The mitigative measure says that any environmentally sensitive area should not be disturbed. This would likely limit how much of the site can be developed. Commissioner Hinton asked if the Planning staff visited the site? Jerry Smith reported that they did. The Planning staff also relies on mapping from the Coastal Zone Atlas which indicates that portions of the site have unstable soils. The County's planning area map, indicates that the site has slopes which are in excess of 15%. Jerry Smith reported that his site inspection indicated that 30 to 40 feet into the property there is a very steep (25% to 30%) ravine. There is a home on Lot 1 and the slope may limit the size, placement and configuration of any structure built on Lot 2. He estimates that only 10% to 12% of the one acre parcel (Lot 2) would be suitable for a homesite. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this property was divided previously? Jerry Smith reported that as far has he knows it is a five acre tract that has not be divided any further. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there has been a determination made if there is adequate area for a septic system? Jerry Smith reported that determination has not been made yet, but must be made before the final plat can be approved. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the determination regarding septic system suitability does not have to be made before a SEP A determination is issued. VOl. 19 rAfl "rr 28 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 9 Jerry Smith noted that it may well be within reason for the County to reconsider the mitigative measure which says that steep slopes can not be disturbed in any way. He suggested that this mitigative measure could be reworded to allow a little more flexibility by saying that a soil evaluation be done prior to issuance of a building permit. The western end of Lot 1 appeared to be steeper than lot 2 where the existing home is located. Commissioner Wojt opened the public hearing. Christine Schoper explained that she is appealing mitigative measure number 4 which says '~reas in proposed lots 1 and 2 identified as having slopes greater than 15% gradient, and therefore environmentally sensitive, shall not be disturbed. Naturally occurring organic mulch consisting of deciduous debris, conifer needles, tree bark and undergrowth shall not be removed or disturbed." As this mitigation reads, Ms. Schoper noted that she can't touch anything. All of the property is 15% slope or more. This mitigative measure seems extreme to her. Jerry Smith advised that the alternative wording for this mitigative measure would still address the issue of environmentally sensitive slopes and would allow the slopes to be identified as part of the final short plat approval process. It would require site specific evaluation prior to issuance of a building permit. Christine Schoper re-read the proposed mitigative measure and indicated that it was acceptable to her. Craig Jones questioned whether this short plat is subject to SEP A review because generally short plats are categorically exempt under SEP A. There is an exception to that if there is an environmentally sensitive area on the property. WAC 197.11.908 says that in order to impose sensitive area mitigation, accurate maps showing the location and extent of the environmentally sensitive areas are necessary. Along with the accurate maps, there should be an ordinance adopting them. Katherine Jenks disagreed with Mr. Jones. Under GMA mapping is not the final word (for environmentally sensitive areas). GMA recommends that maps be used to indicate areas of concern, rather than to delineate exactly where everything is. The maps are not the end of the process the site inspection is the end of the process. Roger Short stated that Mr. Jones is correct regarding the SEP A review. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton asked if Christine Schoper would agree to the suggested mitigative measure presented by Jerry Smith. Christine Schoper stated that she would agree to it. Commissioner Hinton moved to remand the mitigated determination of non-significance back to the Planning Department to work out the final mitigation by the end of this week. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of GMA Interim Critical Areas Ordinance and Process and Options for Resource Lands: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward explained that the Planning Department is seeking the Board's direction on how to proceed with the critical area regulations required by the Growth Management Act. There is an existing ordinance proposed which has gone through the environmental review process. There are three appeals of the SEP A threshold determination on this proposed ordinance. Craig Ward continued by noting that the main issues are: adequacy of the draft ordinance, disagreement over the classification, the designation and the protection standards in the draft ordinance, disagreement over the process for implementing the ordinance, and frustration over the maps. vot '0- 19 tM,r '\; ~ "~9 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 10 The County is charged to adopt critical area protection, and the extension of time granted for this work expired March 1, 1992, Craig Ward continued. Another issue is the budget implication of any decision made. No professional services have been budgeted in 1993 to allow for the hiring of additional consultants. Craig Ward reviewed the three alternatives outlined in his memo to the Board regarding this issue: Option 1: Option 2: In House Review - Most rapid and least expensive in time and money. The Planning Department believes that this process could be concluded by May. a) Consultant Reviews Proposed Ordinance - The scope of work would have to be developed before the County could go out to bid for consultant services. This option would have a consultant review the proposed ordinances that have been drafted. The Board would need to decide if more public involvement is needed. Consultant Creates New Ordinance - This would have the consultant prepare a new draft ordinance such as a stand alone critical area ordinance, which would require additional time for drafting, a new environmental review, and review by the Planning Commission. Option 2: b) The staff recommends that option 1 be adopted because of budget constraints and deadline pressures. In order to proceed with this option the Board will need to consider the appeals of the SEP A threshold determination, hold in-depth briefings with Planning staff of what the ordinance is in its current form and how it would work, and provide direction on any amendments they feel are necessary. A public hearing would have to be held on the re- drafted ordinance. Commissioner Wojt noted that a comment was brought up earlier today regarding how this ordinance dovetails with the County-wide Planning Policy? Craig Ward reported that it does not dovetail with that policy. These ordinances are to be interim ordinances which will only be in effect until the County Comprehensive Plan is revised. The law requires that a year after the Comprehensive Plan is amended, the County make any official controls, such as the SEP A Ordinance, compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The County-wide Planning Policy will drive the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Wojt noted another concern which is that the ordinance as written is too difficult for the general public to understand. Craig Ward, after explaining why the ordinance language seems complicated, suggested that a workbook and checklist could be developed for the public to help them understand it. Commissioner Hinton asked whose responsibility it is to prove that property is, or is not in, a critical area? Craig Ward said that it is the County's responsibility to use the best information available and make designation determinations based on that information. Site specific evaluations are necessary and past policy on land use development has been that such an evaluation is at the applicant's expense. Commissioner Hinton asked if Craig Ward has been in contact with DCD to see if they have a recommendation for the best way to proceed? He reported that he has not. In response to a question regarding whether ordinances from other Counties have been reviewed, he advised that many ordinances from other counties have been reviewed. Commissioner Hinton asked if the Planning Department has enough staff? Craig Ward reported that the Department is seriously understaffed for the job they have to do. The discussion continued regarding the mapping, the amount of area in the County that would be designated as a critical area and the criteria for designation. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels that the County has to get on with this process. He feels that the proposed ordinance is too broad in scope. He would like staff to come up with an ordinance with the minimum requirement that will meet the intent of the law, and then get on with the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The Forest Practice Act takes care of timberlands and the Shoreline Act takes care of the shoreline. VOl., 19 rMl '-n 30 . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 11 Mark Huth reported that the Board should hear the appeal of the DNS or withdraw the ordinance. Commissioner Wojt asked if all three appeals can be handled at one time? Mark Huth advised that the three appeals could be consolidated and addressed at one hearing. Craig Ward repeated that if the existing ordinance is withdrawn, any new proposed ordinance would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, a SEP A determination would have to be made on the new draft and then at least one public hearing would have to be held. He noted that the important thing is that the Board understand the ordinance that is taken to public hearing. After further discussion of the current draft ordinance and options for proceeding, Commis- sioner Huntingford reported that Eric Huart of the State Department of Community Development, Growth Management Division, has offered to meet with the Board to discuss this matter. Mark Huth reported that the Board does not have to decide today about the appeal of the threshold determination, but some decision should be made before the end of the month. Commissioner Huntingford asked that some workshops with staff and the Board be scheduled to review the proposed ordinance. Craig Ward reported that the workshops will be scheduled through the Clerk of the Board at the earliest possible time. AI Boucher asked that the Board take a stand on his proposal that their first order of business is to amend the County-wide Planning Policy. He feels it would be a fatal error if the County doesn't proceed first with the County-wide Planning Policy to get the framework, philosophy, guidance, and vision, and then let everything else fit in. Chairman Wojt reminded Al Boucher that the County-wide Planning Policy was developed through a joint planning process with the City and any revision of it will require dealing with the City. AI Boucher responded that the County must collaborate with the City, but that the County is responsible for adopting it. Kate Jenks asked if the Prosecuting Attorney would explain the role of the public in this process as mandated by the Growth Management Act (2929 and 1025)? Mark Huth explained that if the Board goes with a new draft ordinance, there are public process requirements within GMA that will have to be met in the same manner as they were with the previous draft ordinance. The discussion continued regarding the public involvement process as defined in the Growth Management Act and how that would be provided in review of any amended or new draft ordinance, and the scope and effect of the County- wide Planning Policy. Craig Ward reported that the Planning Department will schedule workshops to deal with the proposed policies for resource lands after the Board deals with the critical areas regulations. Status of Environmental Impact Statement for the Jefferson County Development Code: In August of 1991 the Clallam County Superior Court invalidated the County's Development Code due to procedural flaws in it's adoption, Craig Ward reported. In January of 1992 the Board passed an emergency decree and authorized the establishment of the Jefferson County Interim Zoning Ordinance. That ordinance was designed to sunset and be replaced by July of 1993. Two major components of the Development Code are left to be completed - creating precisely detailed maps, and the development of an Environmental Impact Statement. The consultant hired to complete the environmental impact statement was unfortunately killed in a car accident last September. The County has been trying to work with the consultant's estate to obtain any work that he had completed, but have had very little luck in doing that. The Planning Department is prepared to go out to bid for another consultant. There is funding in the Prosecuting Attorney's budget under professional services to hire a consultant to do this EIS. After ';ot. 19 f'MF ~n 31- -- ".. \...... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 11, 1993 Page: 12 explaining the scope of work for this consultant, Craig Ward recommended that the Board agree that a request for proposals be issued for a consultant to do this work. Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the Planning Department publish a request for proposals for a consultant to do an environmental impact statement on the Development Code. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Establishin2 County Prosecutin2 Attorney's Salary for 1993: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 3-93 setting the Prosecuting Attorney's salary for 1993 at $48,565,00. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: d Œ-1MR .:J ~~__ Lorna L. Delaney, - ([ Clerk of the Board /O!. 1 9 i'M,' t"!J 32