Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM021892 't. .., ." c:..t~ c;;:? ~Ö~ .¿jet MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. The Board met in a briefing session with Community Services Director David Goldsmith. Proposal from District Court re: Adult Probation Services: Com- munity Services Director David Goldsmith reviewed the request from the District Court to combine the technical responsibilities of the Deputy Probation Counsellor and Probation Counsellor, currently in this department into one position and use the money saved for a secretarial support position. Chairman Dennison asked that the figures presented by District Court be checked and that the office organization be reviewed further before a decision is made on this request. Request for Hotel/Motel Tax Funds; Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce: David Goldsmith reported that the Port Hadlock Chamber of Com- merce was given funding from the 1992 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to pay past due bills to keep their Visitor Information Center open. They are now asking for more funding to keep the VIC open for the balance of 1992. David Goldsmith will meet with the representatives of the Port Hadlock Chamber to discuss their needs further and report back to the Board. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to delete item 16 and then approve and adopt the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Surveying Services for the New Alignment on the South Bogachiel Road Slide CR0606; Northwestern Territories, Inc. Port Angeles 2. Bid Award: One (1) Conveyor System for Handling and Sorting Recyclable Materials; To Recycling Equipment Manufacturing, Airway Heights for the Bid of $50,710.20 3. Approved State Purchase Requisition for a 1992 GMC 3500HD Truck Cab and Chassis; For Public Works Department; Smokey Point Sales & Service, Arlington 4. Bid Award; Labor and Equipment to Move the Jefferson County Health Depart- ment to a New Facility; Town and Country Movers 'iC- 18 ¡AÇ;~ 00 279 " ~, ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 2 5. Hearing Notice re: Changing the Name of a Platted Road in Evergreen Addition; From Third Street (also known as Alder Avenue); Setting Hearing Date of March 2, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 12-92 re: Hearing Notice; Application for Franchise; For an Irrigation Line in County Road Rights-of-way of Highland Drive and Paradise Bay Road; Pope Resources Applicant; Setting Hearing Date of March 9, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 7. Approve 1992 Dance Licenses; 1) The Resort at Port Ludlow and 2) The Whistling Oyster Tavern, Quilcene 8. AGREEMENT and Approval of Payment re: Program Funding for 1992; JeffersonjClallam Counties Big BrotherslBig Sisters Program 9. AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1992; Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council - Community Center Programs 10.AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1992; Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council - Health Care Access Program I1.AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1992; Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council - Forks RecreationjRSVP Program 12.Approve for Payment; Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; William Burney $500.00; Elmer Assman $500.00; Bruce E. White $400.00; Mervyn W. Browne $350.00 13.Approve Public Meeting Notice; Workshop on Flooding; Scheduled for February 25, 1992 at 10:00 a.m.; Quilcene Community Center 14.AGREEMENT No. 91-10-21 Amendment 1 re: Health Department Services for the Child Development (Birth - 3 Years of Age) Program; Jefferson County Human Services 15.AGREEMENT and Request for First Quarter Allocation re: Program Funding for 1992 from the HoteljMotel Tax Fund; Jefferson County Historical Society 16.Item Deleted AGREEMENT and Request for Payment re: Program Funding for 1992 from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund; Jefferson County Maritime Bicentennial Organizing Committee 17.Notice of Request for Proposals; For Environmental Consulting Services; To Assist in the Implementation of the Newly Adopted Jefferson County Open Space Tax Program for the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department 18.RESOLUTION NO.13-92 re: In the Matter of the Prosecuting Attorney's Salary for 1992 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the minutes of December 16 and 23, 1991, January 6, 13, and 21, 1992 as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Vacancies on the Parks Advisory Board: The Clerk of the Board reported that there are currently four vacancies on the Parks Advisory Board; three representing the third Commissioner District and one representing the first Commis- sioner District. These vacancies were advertised with an application submission deadline of January 31, 1992. Three applications were received from interested· residents in the third district and two were received from the first district. Three more applications were received after the deadline for the position representing the third district. The Board concurred that since a deadline was advertised that the applications received after that time, not be considered. The Board will interview all of the applicants for these positions. YOL 18 rAK 00 280 1 "'\ .b, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 3 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING AGREEMENTS (2) EIS Coordinator and EIS Preparation; Determina- tion of Sienificance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS; Mixed Use Residential. Commercial and Recreational Development (SDP91-0017); Inn at Port Ludlow; Pope Resources (See also Minutes of February 10. 1992): Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that this meeting is to resolve the issue of the EIS Coordinator and the EIS preparation agreements. An advertisement for the EIS Coordinator position is being prepared to be published next week. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that he has reviewed both of these documents and made changes to them. He noted that the Board will need to initial the changes: EIS Preparation Agreement: · Page 1, item 3 "Reporting and Supervision by Jefferson County" of the EIS Preparation Agreement which will say". . .and shall report directly to the EIS C d· " oor malor, . . . · Page 2, item 4 "Consultant Responsibility" (D) to read ". . . to ensure ap- propriate preparation, coordination . . ." EIS Coordinator Agreement: · Page 2, Mark Huth reported, states that Pope Resources will pay the Coordinator directly. He feels that the County should pay the Coordinator and Pope Resour- ces can then reimburse the County for that cost. The County will enter into a professional services contract with a qualified person to provide these services. David Cunningham, representing Pope Resources agreed that the agreement be changed to read "Pope Resources agrees to pay Jefferson County directly for the work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. " Chairman Dennison then reviewed the items submitted by the Port Ludlow Com- munity Council in their letter of February 18, 1992. Expanded Scoping - Chairman Dennison reported that the County did not invoke the expanded scoping process. Alternatives - The Planning Department referred to the PLCC Alternative 1 as Alternative 2 in their staff report. Stan Kadesh, representing the PLCC, reported that this was mentioned to point out that a correction is needed. Concern 1 - Stan Kadesh stated that the PLCC is concerned that they have a copy of the site specific alternative submitted by Pope Resources prior to the February 26 meeting. David Cunningham reported that the alternatives submitted by the PLCC were not given to Pope Resources in advance of the meeting. He offered to have copies of the programmatic and site specific alternatives to the County and the PLCC by the end of this week. Concern 2 - Since the Board elected to select an outside consultant to prepare the EIS and to enter into an agreement with Pope Resources defining the respon- sibilities and relationships between the Lead Agency and the applicant, Stan Kadesh stated the PLCC has the following concerns: a) Has the consultant been selected by Pope Resources or the County? b) Has the consultant been authorized to start collecting data from governmen- tal agencies prior to the agreement being approved by the County? c) Can the County (Lead Agency) provide the general requirements to the consultant and the other governmental agencies before the completion of ~OL 18 r~ 00 281. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 4 the EIS scoping which is scheduled for February 26? Jim Pearson reported that Section 402 of the WAC lists the requirements. Chairman Dennison reported that the answer to a) is that the County has agreed to the selection of the consultant. This was discussed at the last meeting. Mark Huth reported that he just gave the representatives of the PLCC a copy of the agree- ments. Mr. Kadesh then questioned if $5,000 is enough to hire an EIS Coordinator to oversee this project? Jim Brannaman added that he feels to hire an outside consultant to do this work will probably cost more than $5,000. He expressed concern that once the money is gone that the County may decide that they can't afford the oversight of the project. Mark Huth stated that the proposed agreement for the EIS Coordinator says that "Absent an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the EIS Coordinator shall be paid based upon an hourly fee mutually agreeable to the parties. Pope Resources agrees to pay up to, but not to exceed, $5,000 of the salary expense of the EIS Coordinator. . ." He feels this clause leaves the agreement open for further negotiation if the $5,000 runs out. David Cunningham confirmed that there is a limit of $5,000. He feels that $5,000 will be more than adequate for this work. The discussion continued regarding this position, and how much time, and funding is needed for it, who the Coordinator will answer to, and the hourly rate for this work. Mark Huth advised that instead of trying to cover every possible eventuality of hiring in the agreement, he feels that the advertisement should be placed and the hiring process be started, to see if there is anyone qualified and interested in doing this work. Regarding the item (2 a) about whether the consultant was authorized to start collecting data and item (2 c) whether the intent of WAC 402 has been met, Chairman Dennison stated that he hasn't heard anything about the agreed upon consultant gathering information. Jim Pearson reported that Marsha Harris, Chima cum School District, told him that the Farris Company has contacted them requesting that the School District begin preparing information to address their concerns. Chairman Dennison asked the representatives of the PLCC if they were aware of any instances where anything more than general information was req- uested? Stan Kadesh reported that they were under the impression that the hiring of the consultant would not occur until the EIS Preparation Agreement was approved by the County. Then they were given information that the school district and the fire district were approached by the consultant for information. Chairman Dennison explained that during last weeks meeting it was agreed that Pope Resources would be allowed to chose the consultant with the County's concurrence as long as they were willing to allow the County to hire an independent Coordinator. He feels that the information that was requested in both of these instances, is information that would be necessary no matter who the consultant is. Stan Kadesh reported that they feel this is putting the horse before the cart. The County doesn't have the Coordinator hired yet. Chairman Dennison added that the consultant would be gathering this information at their own risk. Commissioner Brown added that he feels the role of the Coordinator is to evaluate the informa- tion that is gathered. Chairman Dennison summarized that the Coordinator is to make sure that issues identified in the scope are covered, and that the information provided is accurate. Mark Huth then reviewed the consultant responsibilities identified the EIS Coordinator Agreement. ~ot. 18 rM;€ 00 28Z Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 5 Jim Pearson asked how the Board would like to coordinate the preparation of the EIS? Chairman Dennison answered that he would like to wait until the EIS Coordinator is hired before addressing that. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Agreements with Pope Resources for the EIS Preparation and Coordinator with the changes as recommended by the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. 91-0008; Place a Recreational Moorine: Buoy; 700 feet South of the Mystery Bay State Park Dock; Edward Dele:ado: Planning Department Permit Technician Michelle Grewell reviewed this Shoreline Permit for the placement of a private, recreational mooring buoy approximately 500 feet southwest of the Mystery Bay State Park dock. Associate Planner Jim Pearson added that several Shoreline Permits were approved for mooring buoys in this general vicinity in 1989. The mitigated determination of non-significance issued on May 22, 1989 for Beauchamp, et al was adopted for this permit. He reported that the Planning Department did not find any problems with impacts to navigation, adjacent shoreline properties, or placement of other mooring buoys in the area by shoreline property owners. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the shoreline permit for Edward Delgado as recommended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Eric Huart and Kathy Lindquist. State Department of Community Development re: The Growth Manae:ement Act Deadlines: Eric Huart and Kathy Lindquist of the State Department of Community Development came before the Board to discuss the January 31, 1992 letter which advised that the DCD could not grant an extension beyond the March 31, 1992 deadline for the County to have interim ordinances adopted regarding Resource Lands and Critical areas as provided in the State's Growth Management Act. Chairman Dennison advised that Jefferson County took the directive of the Growth Management Act regarding early and continuous public involvement very seriously. He then reviewed the public process Jefferson County has gone through to date on Growth Management. Eric Huart explained that if the March 1 deadline is not met by the County, individuals may file suit because the County would not be in compliance with the State law. After the March 1 deadline has passed, someone would have to appeal the missed deadline to the Growth Planning Hearings Board for this area. These Planning Board's won't be appointed until April 1. If the Planning Board found that the County was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act, they have the authority to grant the County an extension to get into compliance. If they decided that the County was not in compliance, they would forward their findings to the Governor who could start sanctions against the County. Tax monies and grant funding could be withheld as part of these sanctions. Kathy Lindquist reported that the Hearings Board can give the County up to 180 days to get into compliance and one of the things they will be looking at is the County's good faith effort to work on these regulations. VOl 18 r~~ 00 283 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 6 The discussion continued regarding the problems Jefferson County has faced in trying to meet the provisions of the Growth Management Act, inconsistencies in the Act, the flexibility in the Act and the Legislature's intent when they passed it. Eric Huart reminded the Board that whatever ordinances are adopted now will have to be changed after the Comprehensive Plan is updated because these ordinances will have to be in compliance with that document when it is finished. The longer term impact on how critical lands and resources lands are conserved will be from the Comprehensive Plan update which is the next requirement of the Growth Management Act. Chairman Dennison asked if there was information available from other Counties that might help? Kathy Lindquist reiterated that it is important for Jefferson County to move forward in developing the interim regulations that will fit its' requirements. Chairman Dennison then asked if a SEP A review and threshold determination is required for the interim regulations? Eric Huart reported that every County has to determine how this will be done. As far as he remembers, there has only been one EIS done on the interim regulations and that was in King County. Every County is required to do an environmental checklist and threshold determination on these interim regulations. Kathy Lindquist then reported that King and Pierce County are finished or close to finished with their interim regulations. Some jurisdictions indicated that they feel they have already met the requirements of the Act. The majority of the Counties are in the same situation that Jefferson County is, in trying to meet the March 1 deadline. The discussion then turned to the need for definitive maps of the resource lands and critical areas, the technical and financial assistance that the County needs, and the Jefferson 2000 survey of community values. There are technical assistance work- books being developed by DCD for the Counties to use, Eric Huart reported. The procedural criteria to be used in the Comprehensive Plan update is also being developed. The discussion turned to how the County will proceed with the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. Plannim! Commission Request for Additional Involvement in Draftin2 the Growth Mana2ement Interim Ordinances: Planning and Building Depart- ment Senior Planner James Holland presented and reviewed the two proposed alternatives timelines for producing the draft interim ordinances required by the Growth Management Act. Alternative 1 outlines the timeline for this process to be completed by June 1, while Alternative 2 outlines the timeline for completion of the process by April 27. He reported that it appears to him that the most efficient way to proceed is to have these ordinances be controlled by the Board rather than the Planning Commission. Both of the alternative time lines presented, Craig Ward reported, presume that the ordinances will be drafted by Planning Department staff for the Board, then be sent to the Planning Commission for a report and when that is done the Board will hold public hearings on them. The Planning Commission has played an active role in the Growth Management process to date. Chairman Dennison suggested that as the ordinance language is drafted by the Planning Department they provide it to the Planning Commission to review as soon as possible. Craig Ward reported that the Planning staff could schedule workshops with the Planning Commission on a weekly or bi-weekly basis as the language is drafted. The discussion continued regarding the Planning Commission's role in this process, the time needed to draft the ordinances, and trying to meet the deadlines for the adoption of the ordinances. ':Ol 18 rAÇ~ 00 284 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 7 James Holland explained that Alternative 1 has a provision for several public hearings. After the public hearings the public and staff input will be reviewed with the Board in a workshop. After the final SEP A threshold determination is made the final revision of the draft ordinances will be produced for the Board to take action on. The Board concurred that the Alternative 1 timeline be adopted with four public hearings scheduled; one each in Port Townsend, Chimacum (Tri Area), Quil- cenefBrinnon and the West End. After further discussion of the Planning Commis- sion's role, the Board also concurred that these ordinance will be controlled by the Commissioners. Crah~ Ward. Director. Plannin2 & Buildin2 Department re: Resource Land Desi2nation Mappin2 Requirements: Craig Ward reported that the maps of the resource lands would be helpful to have for the public to see during the interim ordinance hearings. The Growth Management Act does not require maps when performance standards are developed, however. A recommendation has been made by the resource land work group that the existing resource land boundaries be used to delineate resource lands for Growth Management. The County doesn't currently have parcel specific maps to interpret the optimum land use maps. After further discussion of the use of the Optimum Land Use maps and/or per- formance standards, Assistant Planner David Young asked that a date for completion of the maps be set by the Board. Chairman Dennison reported that the real issue is if there is the funding to pay for having the maps done sooner than originally sche- duled. David Young advised that it will cost approximately $15,000 to have these maps ready for the public hearings. Another $5,000 is needed to complete the parcel mapping project. Chairman Dennison reported that the Board will review this matter with the Budget Manager. Plannin2 Commission Recommendation for Adoption of Administrative Rules for the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: (See also Minutes of February 10, 1992) Craig Ward reported that the Planning Commission meeting record was reviewed to determine if they were operating in an official meeting when they reviewed the Administrative Rules. There was confusion about whether their meeting was cancelled. He noted that the staff was not notified that the meeting was cancelled. If the meeting had been cancelled a public notice to that effect would have to be published and that was not done. Frederick Tuso reported that he was at the Planning Commission meeting prior to the last one and Fred Grove, Chairman of the Commission, stated to the audience that there would be no regular meeting the next week. vot 18 00 285 rAf)t" . .4, i .' '} Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 18, 1992 Page: 8 Mark Huth suggested that, even though the legal and technical requirements were met, the best solution would be to have the Planning Commission review these Administrative Rules at their next meeting. The Board concurred that these Administrative Rules be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: () J .. , -:() " ~ i -; ¡ ATIEST: ~~~iliO~ - ma L. Delaney, .. . . . Clerk of the Board ~Ol 18 fA~£ 00 286