Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120792 · r ~-' <:h~ 'V" ~Ò.c' MINUTES WEEK OF DECEMBER 7, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison after the Board interviewed three persons interested in serving on the Planning Commission. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The Board agreed to add Mari Phillips comments during the public comment period on November 16, 1992 to the minutes of that meeting. The format for the hearing on the SEP A Ordinance amendments were discussed as well as the threshold determination for the proposed Ordinance. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. HEARING NOTICE re: A Proposed Ordinance; Setting Fee for Animal Services; hearing set for December 21, 1992 at 11:30 a.m. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 116-92 re: Cancellation of Unclaimed Warrants 3. AGREEMENT re: Maintenance and Restrictive Covenant; To Ensure that Drainage System will be Constructed and Maintained in Accordance with Approved Plan; Lee Wilburn 4. CONTRACT re: Juvenile Detention Service 1993; Kitsap Youth Center 5. GRANT AGREEMENT #TAX90094, Amendment 7; QuilcenelDabob Implementation; State Department of Ecology 6. AGREEMENT, Interlocal; Jefferson County Use of Solid Waste Handling System Pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW; Klickitat County 7. NOTICE re; Request for Statements of Qualifications and Letters of Interest; Establish- ment of a Consultant Roster (Per RCW 39.80) 8. RESOLUTION NO. 117-92 re: Changing the Name of a Private Road; Kenny Lane to Country Ridge Drive 9. RESOLUTION NO. 118-92 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Unopened 6th Street and of Unopened 7th Street; Plat of Irving Park Addition 10.RESOLUTION NO. 119-92 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Second Street in the Plat of South Port Townsend 11. CONTRACT re: Purchase of One (1) used 1975 Truckweld Two Axle 8 to 10 Yard Pup Trailer; Vern Heinrich Trucking 12.Accept Recommendation for Bid Award and Sign CONTRACT; Purchase of One (1) new Peterbilt 10 Yard Dump Truck Chassis Model 357 SBFA; Western Peterbilt, Inc. of Seattle for their bid price of $68,625.46 13. Accept Planning Recommendation to Adopt; Interim Zoning Administrative Procedure Amendment 1"-', " 0 r~.~)~ o I 5,16 ...... ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 2 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS BID OPENING re: Proiect SWI025 Procurement of Services for Trans- portation and Disposal of Jefferson County Municipal Solid Waste: Public Works Director Gary Rowe opened and read the bids received for the transportation and disposal of solid waste. BIDDERS: BID TOTALS: 1. Waste Management of Washington, Inc. Disposal $802.00 per trailer (acceptable waste) $943.00 per trailer (for asbestos) Transport $26.40 per ton (acceptable waste) $80.00 per ton (for asbestos) 2. Regional Disposal Company Disposal Transport $904.96 per trailer (acceptable waste) $904.96 per trailer (for asbestos) $18.21 per ton (acceptable waste) $34.00 per ton (for asbestos) Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department review the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BID OPENING re: One (1) New or Used Aerial Man Lift: Gary Rowe opened and read the bids received on one new or used aerial man lift as follows: BIDDERS: BID TOTALS: 1. Allied Body Works, Inc. Seattle No bid 2. Pacific Utility Equipment (Including Sales Tax) 1992 Model BST4000 $72,062.20 Engineer's Estimate 65,000.00 Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department check the bid for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Gary Rowe explained the type of equipment being requested. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. BID OPENING re: Closure of Landfill and Septa2e La200n in Accordance with Chapter 173-304 WAC: Chairman Dennison waited until after 10:45 a.m. (as indicated by both clocks in the Commissioners' Chambers) to have Public Works Director Gary Rowe open and read the bids received on the closure of the landfill and septage lagoon as follows: BIDDERS: BID TOTALS: 1. Stan Palmer Construction 2. Sheldrug Construction, Mt. Vernon $1,659,437.50 1,482,894.00 VOL 18 r~ 0 LS'17 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 3 The Commissioners' Office Secretary entered the Chambers with two more bids. Chair- man Dennison asked how long the bids were held in the office (adjacent to the Cham- bers)? The Clerk of the Board reported, and the Secretary concurred, that the bids came into the office and were brought directly to the Chambers. Gary Rowe advised that the two bids be held separately. He continued to open the bids. 3. Delhur Industries, Port Angeles 4. Active Construction, Gig Harbor 5. TLC Excavating and Construction, Port Angeles 6. Callen Construction, Custer, Wa. 7. Tri State Construction, Bellevue 8. Wilder Construction, Bellingham 9. Tucci & Sons, Tacoma 10. Scoccolo Construction 11. Beck Environmental Contracting 12. GeoCon, Inc. Hayward Ca. 1,368,071.00 1,530,531.60 1,442,703.82 1,714,560.00 1,251,697.00 1,592,822.50 1,558,917.50 1,284,192.50 1,536,575.38 1,583,092.50 Gary Rowe advised that the two bids received after 10:45 a.m. were from IMCO General Construction and Little Chief Construction. He returned them to the Clerk of the Board unopened. The Engineer's estimate for this work is $1,161,775.00. Commissioner Wojt moved to have the Public Works Department review the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Chan2in2 the Name of County Roads: Braden Creek Road to Fullerton Road and Hoh VllIa2e Road to Lower Hoh Road: Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing on the changes to the following road names: Braden Creek Road to Fullerton Road and Hoh Village Road to Lower Hoh Road. These roads are both located in the west end of the County. Hearing no comments he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 120-92 changing these road names as requested. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a un- animous vote. Skookum Jump Rope Community Development Block Grant Application: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that he is not sure that a CDBG grant can be used for the purposes as stated by Skookum Jump Rope. Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the grant application is for construction of a building which will be transferred to the Port of Port Townsend. All of the administrative work, construction and the building itself will be handled by the Port through a Memorandum of Understand- ing with the County. The discussion continued regarding the possible lending of the County's credit. The Prosecuting Attorney stated that as long as the ownership of building is going to be transferred to the Port, there should be no problem with this grant applica- tion. Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 121-92 for the CDBG Block Grant Application as rewritten. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: 1992 Bud2et AppropriationslExtensions: Various County Departments: Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing on the 1992 budget ap- propriations and extensions requested by the following County Departments: Auditor- Elections $31,360.00, Human Services-Substance Abuse $36,956.00, Planning Commission $3,500.00 and Coroner $4,600.00 from the unencumbered current expense fund and $8,000 VOL 18 rAbf o .1548 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 4 from the unencumbered Veterans· Relief Fund. Hearing no comments the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to review the request from the Sheriff's Department further before taking action on that request. Commissioner Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 122-92 ordering the requested appropriations/extensions as submitted except the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Final Short Plat: #SPI4-91 Gordon Short Plat: 2 Lot Subdivision off Rondelay Road-Gardiner Beach Road-Old Gardiner Road:· Permit Technician Michelle Wood reported that all necessary County Departments have signed off on this two lot short plat and all preliminary conditions of approval have been met. Commissioner Brown moved to issue final approval of this short plat. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of SEP A Threshold Determination and Adoption re: Amend- ments to Aquaculture Provisions and other related sections: Shoreline Mana2ement Master Prouam (Continued from November 23. 1992): Associate Planner Jim Pearson explained that the Board has reviewed all of the proposed amendments, the public comments received on the amendments, and the changes made to reflect these comments. There are still three unresolved issues: 1) review of enhancement proposals, 2) review of mechanical or hydraulic harvesting of hard shell clams and geoducks, and 3) adoption of use classifications for passive aquaculture and enhancement. The Board needs to finalize the threshold determination (DNS was issued). The Planning Department staff recommends that the DNS be upheld. Commissioner Wojt asked if it is true that the State Department of Fisheries has issued a determination of significance on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as suggested by Scotty McComb in his letter dated November 23, 1992? Jim Pearson reported that an NPDES permit is required by the Federal Clean Water Act. The State Department of Ecology administers NPDES permits. The Department of Fisheries doesn't address them. The DOF has issued a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to address net pen aquaculture in Puget Sound. It was a finding of the final programmatic EIS that net pen aquaculture, when conducted within the parameters outlined in the EIS, should not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Chairman Dennison asked Mr. McComb to clarify portions of his letter. Mr. McComb stated that he understands that the State Department of Fisheries does not administer NPDES permits and that they did issue a determination of significance on net pen aquaculture. Jim Pearson explained that a determination of non-significance on the proposed amendments would not preclude an EIS being issued on a specific project. He added that the amendments rely heavily on the guidance that is in the programmatic EIS issued by the State. The discussion turned to whether an Environmental Impact Statement should have been done on these amendments. Commissioner Wojt asked if there are areas in the County where net pens will be prohibited? Jim Pearson explained that net pens are prohibited in areas of Hood Canal south of Hazel Point (including Dabob Bay and Quilcene Bays). The rest of Hood Canal is still open. This becomes of an issue of whether to take a zoning approach or a performance based approach in review and approval of net pen applications. The zoning approach would require a very thorough study of the waters of the County (depth, tidal flow, water quality, navigation, fishing activities, and residential patterns) and then zones would be identified for these projects. Chairman Dennison added that even if those zones were established, performance standards would be needed to assure that an application VOL 18 rAb€ o 1549 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 5 allowed in that zone would not have an unreasonable impact. He feels that these amend- ments are updating the Shoreline Master Program to provide a criteria for reviewing these applications so that the emergency moratorium can be lifted. The discussion turned to Mr. McComb's comment that ''finite requirements have been replaced with sufficient distance, significant hazard, minimal use, and other vagaries," which Mr. McComb feels waters down the performance standards. Jim Pearson stated that decisions must be made about how well an application meets the criteria in the Shoreline Program based on the information available at the time the application is reviewed. He then explained that the changes made in the proposed amendments were not done to water down the regulation, but to provide criteria for fair and consistent judgements to be made. Commissioner Brown asked if the programmatic EIS addresses water quality impacts? Jim Pearson reported that the EIS references the interim guidelines developed by the State Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, and Wildlife. Commissioner Brown asked if the programmatic EIS considered the relationship between the number of pens and the amount of nitrogen produced? Jim Pearson reported that this relationship is discussed in the interim guidelines. The State Department of Ecology has looked at this issue and the NPDES permit also asks for that type of information and analysis. He added that he would rely on the State Department of Ecology for this type of technical information. Commissioner Brown asked if there will be technical help available from the State DOE when applications come forward? Jim Pearson reported that the Department of Ecology is charged with helping counties with this type of technical information. Commissioner Brown asked if net pens are a preferred use? Jim Pearson reported that net pens are considered intensive subtidal projects which are secondary uses. A public hearing by the Shoreline Commission is required for this type of use application. Commissioner Brown asked if the State's Visual Assessment method is going to be used? Jim Pearson reported that Shoreline Commission reviewed the Visual Assessment manual and recommends that it be adopted as part of these amendments. The discussion continued regarding net pen aquaculture, the need for the proposed amend- ments to the aquaculture section of the Shoreline Program to provide criteria to judge projects by, the continuation of the moratorium, and the visual assessment criteria as proposed. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Jim Pearson asked if the Board agrees with the staff recommendation on the three unresolved items which are: 1) the treatment of enhancement projects, 2) the treatment of mechanical harvesting of geoducks, and 3) the changes to the use classification matrix. Commissioner Wojt retracted his motion, and Commissioner Brown (who seconded the motion) agreed with the retraction. Commissioner Wojt then moved to amend the proposed aquaculture policy to include the wording recommended by staff on the unresolved issues as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown asked if these changes were made as a result from testimony received at the hearings? Jim Pearson reported that the changes were made based on testimony received primarily from the State Department of Fisheries. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt moved to uphold the determination of non-significance on the revised Shoreline Management Master Program Amendments. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 123-92 adopting the revised amendments to the Shoreline Management Master Program. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Jim Pearson will prepare findings of fact for the Board to sign. VOL 18 rAbf o 1550 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 6 Conditional Use #IZ38-92: Chevy Chase Golf Course Drivin2 Ran2e: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the Hearing Examiner recommends approval of this conditional use permit with one condition. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner and approve the conditional use permit with the condition as recommended. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEALTH DEPARTMENT Health Department Administrator David Specter re: Four CONTRACTS: David Specter explained that the following contracts will have an impact on the 1993 budget. Three of the contracts are part of the Family Resource Coordinator project. This project will impact the budget in 1993 by approximately $7,227.00. Grant funding will cover these costs. The fourth contract is for the State funded services of the Health Department. 1. CONTRACT re: 2. CONTRACT re: Health Department Services; Educational Service District #114 Health Department Services; Port Townsend School District #50. This contract is a fee for services agreement with an additional $3,000 for the Family Resource Coordinator. Personal Services, Family Resource Coordinator for the Health Department; Kim Wheeler. Health Department Consolidated Program Funding 1993; Washington State Department of Health: This contract adds approximately $20,000 in revenue for 1993. 3. CONTRACT re: 4. CONTRACT re: All of these contracts are budget neutral with regard to revenue versus expenditures. Commissioner Brown moved to approve all four contracts as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Facilities Mana2er Frank Gifford re: Occupancy Limit of the Superior Court Courtroom: Facilities Manager Frank Gifford reported that he has posted the occupancy limit of 120 persons at the entrance to the Superior Court Courtroom. The Fire Department asked that this be done before the public hearing scheduled for tonight. The City Fire Department and Building Official can waive the occupancy limits and post a person at the site to determine occupancy by a visual inspection. Commissioner Brown asked if this means that when 120 people are in the room tonight, no one else can come in? Frank Gifford explained that is correct. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that if more than 120 people are present, the preference for who is allowed in the Courtroom can be given to the people who are going to give testimony. Frank Gifford reported that City Fire Chief Howard Scott has indicated that he does not have staff available to be at the Courthouse tonight for the hearing. The Board asked that the Mayor be contacted to see if he can help. The Planning Department staff will check into the availability of the Port Townsend High School Auditorium as an alternate place to hold the hearing. The Board began the final 1993 budget hearings at 3:30 p.m. on Monday. At the end of the business day the meeting was recessed and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. in the Superior Court Courtroom, Second Floor, Courthouse. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: An Ordinance Amendin2 Section 2. Repealin2 and Replacing Section 6 and Amendin2 Section 8 of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementin2 Ordinance No. 7-84: Chairman Dennison waited until the hour of 7:00 p.m. and then opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 8 18 LHr_ 0 _1 ;')51 VÜl J~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 7 (Critical Areas) of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementing Ordinance No. 7-84. He explained that because the Superior Court Courtroom is not able to accommodate the number of people expected at the public hearing, that the hearing is being moved to the Port Townsend High School Auditorium. The hearing was recessed just long enough to allow the Board members and public to travel to the High School Auditorium. Chairman Dennison called the hearing back to order at the Port Townsend High School Auditorium. He explained the purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony on the proposed amendments to Section 8 of the County's SEPA Implementing Ordinance (No. 7- 84). These amendments are to designate critical areas as required by the State's Growth Management Act. He then explained the process for the hearing. Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that the purpose of this ordinance amendment is to implement requirements of the Growth Management Act to identify, designate and protect critical areas on an interim basis. This same process will be conducted to identify, designate and protect resource lands early in 1993. The County petitioned the State Department of Community Development to allow an extra six months to have more time for public comment and review in this process. The County is currently about nine months behind the deadline imposed by State law for classifying and designating critical areas and resource lands. This amendment is based on two years of research and public involvement efforts. The SEP A Implementing Ordinance process requires the County to conduct environmental review (a detailed assessment of environmental impacts) on projects for which the County requires a permit. Activities that do not require a permit, are not subject to environmental review. There are also many activities that the County issues permits for that are exempt from the SEP A process. The amendments to this ordinance suggest the type of projects which should continue to remain exempt and also contains guidelines and standards for the review of non-exempt projects. The review is to determine if there is a probable, significant, adverse environmental impact from the project. If an impact is identified and there are guidelines to mitigate the effects of the environmental impact, then the County has the option of issuing a mitigated determination of non-significance for a project. If during the environmental review, no adverse impacts are identified, mitigation or further environmental review is not necessary. Environmental review is triggered, under this Ordinance, by permits that already exist. There are no new permits in this ordinance. The proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act and will be in force only until the County's Comprehensive Plan is revised. A year after the Comprehensive Plan is revised, the County is required to evaluate the existing land use controls and to amend them to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. There are three important policies that are to be implemented through this ordinance: 1. The requirements of the Growth Management Act to classify, designate, and protect critical areas. 2. To improve the predictability of the environmental reviews that the County conducts to assure a timely and efficient permit process. 3. To tailor the severity of environmental threats to the priority of the resource. One thing that has been done throughout this process is assess which critical area, and what aspect of the critical areas need the most protection and then to tailor the review processes accordingly. Projects that are less significant environmentally will receive less protection. Areas that are extremely important for environmental protection purposes will receive more protection. Procedurally this ordinance clarifies the definitions in the existing SEP A Implementing Ordinance. This ordinance describes information requirements for permit review, and has guidelines for appropriate mitigation. It seeks to balance the environmental protection responsibilities of the County with the need for reasonable economic use of property. o ~552 ,Gl 18 rÞk£ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 8 Craig Ward concluded his testimony by explaining that the result of this Ordinance amendment is to protect critical environmental resources, to improve the predictability of environmental reviews and to streamline the development processes. He added that the Planning Department will be submitting written testimony as part of the record. Chairman Dennison again explained that the purpose of this hearing is to take comments on the amendments to the SEP A Ordinance. Testimony will not be taken on the environ- mental review of the proposed ordinance amendment. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained the County SEP A Ordinance allows an appeal of a SEP A threshold determination (the decision made which determines if the ordinance will have a probable, significant, adverse impact on the environment) made by the responsible official, (the Director of Planning) to the Board of County Commissioners. To insure a fair process, the County Commissioners cannot hear any testimony on the SEP A threshold determination until an appeal is filed. No appeal has been filed at this time. If an appeal is filed a subsequent public hearing will be held. Tonight's hearing is for comment on the substance of the ordinance. The Chairman then began calling the speakers who had signed up to give testimony. Mari Phillips: "Commissioners and fellow land owners, as a very concerned landowner and property rights advocate, please allow me to say a few words in opposition to this proposed ordinance. In the very early days of this planning process, I came to the table, willing to hear what the other side had to say. Let's compromise, that seemed to be the suggestion. It didn't take very long for me to figure out that compromise in their view meant me giving up rights or values that could equate in lost opportunities or dollars at some later time. So, with others of similar thinking, the Jefferson County Property Rights Alliance group was formed. Now, there are 1,500 other families, just like mine, that share the same concerns and goals. So, here we are 13 months later, thousands of hours spent trying to understand a document that was never intended to be understood. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, that could have been better spent somewhere else, and what do we have? We have a huge, cumbersome, extremely difficult and confusing law, that even the brighter minds in the County can't seem to keep straight. The Property Rights Alliance has made numerous attempts to keep our members up to date, but the document is so confusing and so very threatening, that we admit we are having extreme difficulty in helping them understand it. I personally can't say that I have a very clear overview of this ordinance. I don't know what it's designed to do, other than confuse, and stop me from doing what I need to do with my land. How is this going to make my life or my kids' life better? I am urging you, the Commissioners, to table this ordinance and let the new Commissioners take up the task with the new year. In the meantime, we on the Property Rights Board pledge to continue our work with the Planning Staff, toward a clear and more concise version of this rule. One that we, the landowner, can live with, and one that will allow us to remain economically viable. Thank you for hearing me." Dick Broders stated that he has been involved in this process for two years and it's taken him that long to get a handle on what this ordinance means. He is really disturbed that almost everyone he talks to, doesn't know what it's about. It's complicated, there are some serious flaws with it, and he feels the findings that the Commissioners have entered have serious flaws. Number 1 - says "The Washington State Department of Community Development has adopted an emergency rule establishing minimum guidelines to classify critical areas." Dick Broders said that there are no minimum guidelines. There are suggested mini- mum guidelines. This finding is a fallacy. Number 14 is insulting. It says "Regulation of the use of critical areas benefits property owners by preventing and avoiding uses, activities and developments which would have adverse impacts on their property." He thinks property owners are fully capable of managing their own land and they don't need the County to tell them how. ',ot 18 rAG~ o 1553 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 9 Number 27 (the last finding) - says "It is the legislative judgment of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners that the standards set forth in these regulations are the minimum necessary to accomplish the requirements of . . . Chapter (the GMA)." Dick Broders noted that he feels this is probably the maximum required. This is a totally bogus finding with no credibility. The maps, which are an integral part of the process, haV1e been developed from sources that were never intended to be regulatory. The habitat maps from the State Department of Wildlife are a wish list from that Department. There is no credibility in the maps. The Coastal Zone Atlas was used and it was never intended to be for regulation. When asked about this, the County says it's the best information they have. If the best information they have is horrible, Dick Broders continued, then they better try to refine it. More time is needed to refine these maps. When 70% of the County · (best guess) is designated an environmentally sensitive area, there is something drastic~lly wrong. Dick Broders asked that more time be spent on the mapping. He then noted that there are problems with the regulatioJj1 through this ordinance. One example is in Chapter 6. Slopes greater than 15% (7 1/2 degrees) are already designated as ESA's. He asked if anyone is currently required to go through an environmental checklist to build a house on a 15% slope? Putting everything (building permits, additions on houses, etc.) through an environmental review doesn't make much sense. Dick Broders urged that something reasonable be implemented. He concluded by noting that there are more problems with the Ordinance, and he may address them after everyone else has a chance to speak. Barbara Blowers stated that she is a Real Estate Broker. She feels that it isn't difficult to marry environmental concerns with development. She noted that it is done backwards in this County. Here a person clear cuts a piece of property and puts the road in, divides the property, and then they go to the County for a development permit. In other counties a person will take a piece of property, look at it, map where the sensitive areas are on it (the topography of the land), then map where the nicest homesites are located, and then layout the property. What they have then is a beautiful development with a lot of natural scenery. The environment is protected and the homesites are far more valuable than ones that have been screwed up by someone who has gone in with a grader. In the long run you end up with a County with a much nicer look and feel to it. In this County, the people have become so polarized, the people on one side are saying "let's put a fence around the County" and on the other side the people are saying "let's grade the whole County. " Neither of these positions make sense. What we really need to begin doing in the new era (January) is to find some sort of balanced approach. She noted that she feels the ordinance is somewhat lengthy for the average person to understand, however, regulations are needed that clearly state that: "the buffer is X number of feet; this is a proven critical habitat area; this is a shoreline; this is an area that has a geological fault." She concluded by noting that it is very easy to balance environmental concerns with property owner rights and end up with the best of both worlds. Howard Schmitt: passed. Jim Olson, Realtor, stated that he doesn't think there is anyone in the room that doesn't want some control over growth. But, anything that impacts lives the way GMA and some of the critical areas can, should have enough time for public input so that the public knows their needs and wishes are being factored into the regulations. The County-wide Planning Policies Strategic Analysis says ". . . in the final analysis, the public interest will be served best if prior to adoption of any regulatory or non-regulatory program, that would impact the housing market, careful consideration be given to accompanying costs and benefits, both internal and external." Affordable housing is one thing that the Realtors in this County are very concerned with. With 60% to 80% of the County being in a critical area which would require a geologist or hydrologist statement before development, delays and increased costs will result. He asked how affordable housing can be provided with these mapping and permit processes? He concluded by explaining that he feels we're moving ahead too quickly and urged that the County go back to the State and ask for 8 Olr:r::,. NL 1 r~ L,,)J.. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 Page: 10 more time to allow continuation of this process with several more hearings and better mapping. Laura Martin stated that she is a property owner in Port Townsend and that she supports this ordinance. Mium Rubin-Crump Before Mium Rubin-Crump was able to speak, members of the Port Townsend Fire Department asked that the Chairman clear the aisles and the hallway because the capacity of the auditorium was exceeded. The Chairman invited as many people as possible to take chairs on the stage. The Fireman in charge explained that everyone in the aisles and hallway would have to move out to the front of the building. He explained that according to the Fire Code, if the occupancy load of the building is exceeded the meeting can be stopped, or the aisles can be cleared. Room can be made for individuals who are outside to come in as room is made available. The discussion then turned to the Open Public Meetings Act and if people can be excluded from the meeting. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that under the Open Public Meetings Act the Commissioners can adjourn the meeting and convene somewhere where they can conduct an orderly meeting. This is the largest room available in Port Townsend, so if the Board does that, they could convene in a smaller place where not as many people can get in. If the meeting is unruly the Board can allow only the number of people in the room that the room can accommodate. Chairman Dennison asked people to fill up the chairs in the auditorium, to allow an orderly meeting. An unidentified woman asked Commissioner Wojt if the meeting could be moved to the Chimacum High School Gym? The Chairman announced that there are vehicles parked in a Fire Lane and near fire hydrants and that they would be towed away if not moved. In response to comments yelled from the crowd, Commissioner Brown explained that the Board's only purpose is to get public testimony. Mter more deliberation on what to do, Commissioner Wojt moved that this hearing be moved to the Chimacum High School Gymnasium on Tuesday, December 8, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. if the building is available. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed on Monday evening and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. Discussion of Continuin2 the Hearin2 on the Amendments to the SEP A Implementin2 Ordinance No. 7-84: Commissioner Wojt moved that because of the lack of facilities to handle the anticipated crowd for the hearing, that his motion to continue the hearing to Tuesday December 8, 1992 be rescinded. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison noted that he is assuming that concurrent with that motion the Board will deliberate and decide at another time, when that hearing will be held. He called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. APPOINTMENT re: Plannin2 Commission Member to represent Commis- sioner District #2: After consideration of all the well qualified candidates Commissioner Brown moved to appoint Guy Rudolph to the unexpired term on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Mter further discussion of the candidates the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion which carried. Chairman Dennison voted against the motion. Mr. Rudolph's term will expire September 30, 1993. Mter finishing these two items of business the Board continued with their 1993 final budget hearings as scheduled. 10:00 a.m. Jefferson County Fair \01_ 18 rA"~ o J S55 -- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 10:30 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 11 :30 a.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Page: 11 Recreation Assessor Human Services Substance Abuse Developmental Disabilities Clerk Superior Court Law Library Juvenile & Family Court Services Juvenile Detention Prosecuting Attorney Coroner Crime Victims Services Jefferson County Drug Fund Animal Services The meeting was recessed at the end of each business day and reconvened the next morning each day of the week per the following schedule for final 1993 budget hearings. All three Board members were present each day for these hearings. Wednesday: December 9. 1992 10:00 a.m. Sheriff Enhanced 911 Fund 2:00 p.m. Thursday: 10:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 11 :30 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 1:45 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:15 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 3:45 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Friday: 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 1:00 p.m. Brinnon Senior Center December 10. 1992 Treasurer Treasurer's 0 & M Commissioners Veterans Relief Operating Transfers Board of Equalization Civil Service Commission Auditor Auditor's 0 & M Elections Non-Departmental Clallam/Jefferson Community Action Council Clallam/Jefferson Big BrotherslBig Sisters Economic Development Council & PDA Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Program Jefferson County Conservation District Jefferson Community Counselling Hotel/Motel Jefferson County Historical Society Tourism Coordinating Council Health Department December 11. 1992 District Court Public Works Facilities Management Bayshore Motel County Parks Improvement Fund Construction and Renovation County Capital Improvement IDMS Public Works - Continued Equipment Rental County Roads Solid Waste Flood/Storm Water Management ~OL 18 rA(;~ J5"56 o , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 1992 SEAL: ATTEST: DÝ (JVJ{a ,¡ Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board Brinnon Flood Control Quilcene Flood Control .,01. 18 rM: Page: 12 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS o -1_557