Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062804 ~~ COMAhA_ ~ /~c;~~a~"" ~~ ST/'/~~ o¿- &~ \l!~ \~ ~/ ~8l¡ G~S\~ ,~IN ~/ -- District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of June 28, 2004 Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order. Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers were present. Discussion re: Highway 20 Corridor Property Purchase: Kees Kolff, Jefferson Land Trust, updated the Board on the property purchase negotiations for the Highway 20 Corridor buffer. The fundraising efforts from the private sector has raised almost $16,000. The donors have requested that an agreement be drafted and signed by the Land Trust, the County, and the City of Port Townsend to ensure that the property will be protected as a forested buffer. He reviewed the draft agreement and the funding sources for the $70,875. The Board discussed the County's portion of the cost which is approximately $26,875. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he is only willing to commit $20,000 in funds, which represents $10,000 ofthe proceeds from County land purchased by the City earlier this year and $10,000 from the County. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the draft agreement. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford stated that he is concerned about several details, including the increase in the County's portion of the payment, when the County will be reimbursed for the logging of the property, and how much of the money will come from the General Fund. Commissioner Rodgers advised that any money that is spent needs to be based on priorities because ofthe County's current budget situation. Commissioner Titterness replied that the County adopted the Highway 20 Corridor Policy 20 years ago and this purchase is consistent with that policy. The actual cost to the County has been reduced by community donations, and he feels that the County is committed to moving forward with the purchase. The Chairman called for the question. Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion failed. Commissioner Titterness moved to continue with the Highway 20 Corridor buffer purchase on the condition that funding sources are clearly identified. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion and called for the question. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion carried. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 ......;;fI:."",.. Later in the Week: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the agreement with the Jefferson Land Trust and the City of Port Townsend regarding the purchase of the Highway 20 Corridor buffer property. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers abstained. The motion carried. (Please Note: This agreement was never fully executed. A revised agreement was approved on July 12, 2004.) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the City of Port Townsend should pay for the SR20 Corridor property; John Fischbach, the new County Administrator, was welcomed by several people; the County needs to look at priorities for spending and not waste time and energy on every request that comes along; it isn't good to be a reactionary government; the SR20 Corridor property should be 100% funded by citizens; the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club voted to become a member of the Hood Canal Coalition and this means that the National Sierra Club also becomes a member; if a County official gets a vehicle allowance, they shouldn't be able to use a motor pool car or have the County pay for other transportation like the van to SeaTac; any staff enforcing the nuisance ordinance will need training on the procedures for going on to private property; there used to be a lot of stores in Port Townsend where people could shop locally but now the shops appeal to tourists and residents have to go to Silverdale; and, trucks hauling gravel create more pollution than barges. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item #6 and approve the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 32-04 re: Updating the Official County Road Log: Extension ofParkridge Drive 2. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services; Risk Management and Employee Safety Programs; David Goldsmith 3. AGREEMENT re: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; City of Port Townsend 4. AGREEMENT re: 2004 HotellMotel Funding; Jefferson County Administrator; Forks Chamber of Commerce 5. AGREEMENT re: Permit Process Improvement Initiative; Jefferson County Administrator; Latimore Company, LLC 6. DELETE: AGREEMENT re: InstaIlation of New Jefferson County Courthouse Front Doors; Jefferson County Central Services; Little & Little Construction (Approved Later in Minutes) 7. AGREEMENT NO. G0400236 re: Northwest Straits Project; Marine Resources Committee Year 5 Project, CZM31 0; WSU Cooperative Extension; Michelle McConnell 8. AGREEMENT re: Animal Services; Jefferson County Health Department; Hadlock Veterinary Clinic 9. Final Long Plat Approval, #SUB97-0006; Woodland Hills Division 2 Phase 2 Located off of Woodland Drive, Port Townsend; Eagle Eye, Inc., Applicant Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 1:2'-""0, l ':~-';~ ":1~(lt"~;';~'- 10. Letter to Office of the Secretary of State re: Intergovernmental Agreement Between the State of Washington, Office of the Secretary of State, and the Jefferson County Auditor's Office; Reimbursement of Additional Costs to Implement the New Primary System Barbara Pastore re: Conservation Futures Oversight Committee Annual Funding Recommendation for 2004 Application Period: Interim Environmental Health Director Dave Christensen explained that the Conservation Futures tax funding is used for acquisition and stewardship of open space lands. An ordinance was adopted that outlines the complete process for distribution of the funds. The Conservation Futures Oversight Committee makes recommendation to the Board who makes the final decision on the funding awards. He introduced Barbara Pastore, Chair of the Committee. Barbara Pastore explained that the Committee's job is to do research and site visits on the properties that have been proposed as projects in the applications for the funding. There are nine very diverse members on the Committee that are appointed by the County Commissioners. She thanked Barbara Bowen, County staff, for her work and energy in helping the Committee process this year's applications. She reviewed the process. The Committee received the applications, conducted site visits on the properties, rated each of the applications on a scale, discussed the results, and rated them a second time. A funding decision from the Committee requires an absolute majority to recommend a project. Eight members deliberated on two of the projects and seven members deliberated on the other project. When they determine that a project is to be recommended for funding, the amount is also determined. There were three applications: Highway 20 Corridor Buffer Project: The Committee was very sensitive to the aesthetic value of this project, however, there are specific guidelines for awarding Conservation Futures funding. The application was to fund $35,000 to acquire a conservation easement. The recommendation not to fund the project was unanimous. Commissioner Titterness asked why this project was not considered a "signature property?" Barbara Pastore answered that this property is identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Plan, but the Committee had concerns that a conservation easement would not accomplish the goal of preserving the property. When they did a site visit, they found that the wooded parcel adjacent to the property gave an illusion of a forested property, but the parcel in the application was actually sparsely forested. As this property borders a County road and a State highway, any widening of these roads would reduce the conservation easement. A provision in the application stated that 20-30% of the timber would be removed and this would thin the parcel more. There was also a question about who would be responsible for the stewardship of the property, but this may have been resolved since May 2 when any additional information had to be submitted to the Committee. Quimper Wildlife Corridor; Jefferson Land Trust: The Committee agreed that the Board approve funding for this project, however, the amount to be funded was an issue. The maximum for Conservation Futures funding is 50% ofthe total project cost. Other open spaces acquired by the sponsor within the previous two years that are adjacent to, or directly linked to, the property under application can be considered as their portion of the total cost. Block 94 was recently purchased and was used to achieve the sponsor's 50%, but some of the Committee members didn't consider it a direct link. The application request was for $80,000. A motion to fund it at $57,750 was a compromise that was approved by the Committee. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Tarboo Valley Conservation Project; NW Watershed Institute: The Committee was asked to fund $50,000 to purchase a conservation easement on the west side of Tar boo Creek. They were impressed by the restoration project, how it relates to the rest of the valley basin, and the ultimate benefits of the whole project. The request was to provide the initial funding for the project which would be leveraged for other grants. If the funding is approved, the Committee feels that the funds should not be released until the other funding sources are committed. They rated the project very high, but ran into a technical problem. The applicant is a private organization that doesn't have a chapter in Jefferson County as required in the Conservation Futures Ordinance. After the deadline for applications, the cover letter of the application was replaced with a page indicating that the Jefferson Land Trust was the applicant. The Prosecuting Attorney was asked to give an opinion and the Committee was divided on the issue. The Committee rejected a motion to fund the project, 3-4. The applicant has been encouraged to reapply next year using a local sponsor. Dave Christensen added that the County Administrator had suggested that the cover page be revised. Barbara Pastore explained another concern that the Committee brought up is that the burden for on-going stewardship of the property falls on the sponsor. HEARING re: Conservation Futures Oversight Committee Annual Funding 2004 Application Period: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. Dave Christensen explained that this hearing is to receive public comment on projects submitted to utilize the Conservation Futures Tax Fund. The project goals must protect and preserve open space. Funds are distributed in accordance with the Conservation Futures Fund Ordinance. Recommendations are provided by the Oversight Committee to the County Commissioners. The three projects for the 2004 application cycle are: the Highway 20 Corridor Project, the Quimper Wildlife Corridor, and Tarboo Valley Conservation. The total amount of funding for the three projects $165,000. The revenues collected in the fund are about $160,000 a year. Due to an unspent balance from previous years, there is enough money to fund all the proj ects. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the meeting. Mark Dembro, President of Jefferson Land Trust, recommended that the Commissioners approve full funding as requested for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor and the Tarboo Creek project. Jefferson Land Trust exists to take on stewardship of the land forever and they accept this responsibility whenever they are given the opportunity. The Oversight Committee did excellent work in evaluating the merits ofthe projects, but got distracted by some technical points. The public support for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor has been demonstrated by donations of over $400,000 from the community. The parcels noted in the application are key connecting pieces as part ofthe overall project. The Tarboo Creek project was rated very high by the Committee. Peter Bales, the coordinator for the project, has a successful history of conservation work in Jefferson County and also has a residence here. There is enough money in the Conservation Futures Fund to fund the entire amount for both of these requests. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Peter Rhines, Tibbals Lake, stated that he is an oceanographer and teacher at the University of Washington. He and his neighbors have pledged $30,000 to the Quimper Wildlife Corridor project. Acquisition of these parcels will come very close to completing the project. These parcels are contiguous to Tibbals Lake which is a 43 acre preserve which seven families maintain. Tibbals lake was an old pasture that has been rehabilitated into wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl. Block 94 is located across the lane from the parcels in the application and it is a contiguous part of the project. Allen Risley, Port Townsend, stated that he and his family live on 38 acres almost adjacent to the Quimper Wildlife Corridor and they have contributed to the matching funds that the Land Trust has raised for the project. He owns an organic farm and the critters in the wildlife area nearby help to keep a balance. His family values the open space and wildlife in the City. Block 94 is a small technical detail. Regarding the Tarboo Creek project, a technicality should not prevent a worthwhile project from moving forward. He asked the Board to fully fund both projects. Christine Edwards, Tarboo Road, asked the Board to fully fund the Tarboo Creek project because it is an important part in the salmon run restoration. The salmon disappeared about 10 years ago and they are starting to come back. Peter Bales has already helped with work on the riparian zones to create shade in the spawnmg areas. Jeffrey Delia, Tarboo Bay, stated that he tries to help the survival of the bay. He has lived there since 1976 and as a fisherman, he sees Cutthroat, Silver salmon, Chum salmon and a small run of Chinook salmon. He is a member ofthe HBLC Board that works with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council on habitat projects. He has worked with Peter Bales in the past and knows that Peter contributes a lot of his own time and money to keep projects going. Tarboo is a very large estuary with only a few residences and Rock Point Oyster Company has a big interest in the bay. Tribes have used the bay for Silver runs. The Tarboo Creek project connects the estuary with the uplands and it is a great project. They could use the money now. He asked the Board to support the project and fund it in full. Allen Fairbank, Port Townsend, stated he is a Board member ofthe Land Trust. Most of the people who have spoken have shown the importance ofthe Quimper Wildlife Corridor and the Tarboo Creek project. It is exciting to see all the people in the community working together to accomplish something that just one organization couldn't do. He appreciates the County's potential contribution towards these goals. Peter Bales, NW Watershed Institute, stated that they are in the process of moving their home office from Oregon to Port Townsend and they will soon become a locally based organization. He thanked the Committee for their support for the Tarboo Creek project. Jefferson Land Trust is the project sponsor and he appreciates that they took the lead. When NWI originally applied for the funding, they talked to staff about whether NWI should be the applicant and Jefferson Land Trust should be the sponsor because it wasn't clear in the documents regarding applications. The Committee asked County Administrator David Goldsmith and he said that under the guidelines, NWI wasn't eligible, but the application could be revised. The application was revised and originally the Committee agreed that they would accept it, but at another meeting several members changed their mind. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 12"""'" ..... '·,:·'.1 ~- -< ~ ~1' ,,' ...~ I", ""~ Dennis Shultz, Conservation Futures Oversight Committee, stated that the Highway 20 Corridor project was the Committee's lowest rated project to date. The Committee agreed unanimously after their site visit that the Tarboo Creek project is a great project. The problem came in bending the rules to accept the revised application, but the Board has the authority to approve the funding. Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Rodgers asked Barbara Pastore to explain why the funding amount for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor was reduced by the Committee? She replied that the parcels to be purchased are not contiguous to Block 94 because there is a road between them. The other view held by some members of the Committee was that each parcel is a piece of the greater whole. The key is the hydrological link, and there hasn't been a technical determination. Dave Christensen presented a map for the Board to review. Mark Dembro stated that the clear intent of the wildlife corridor is that it exists as a single entity. The best science available to the Land Trust regarding hydrology is that the entire wildlife corridor area is hydrologically linked and a single flood plain. There are several roads through the existing wildlife corridor and the integrity of the corridor is not affected by these roads. A road doesn't create a boundary in a wildlife area. Dennis Shultz added that the amount the Committee recommended was 50% of the actual purchase price of the property. The application had requested more than 50%. Commissioner Titterness explained that including Block 94 as match raised the cost ofthe project. Chairman Huntingford explained that the agreement regarding the Highway 20 Corridor Buffer has detailed the amount of funding the County will need to contribute. It appears that the stewardship concerns that the Committee had have been addressed. Commissioner Titterness stated that he feels that the widening of the road is not an issue because the DOT has 50 feet on both sides of the center line in the highway. He suggested using Conservation Futures funds rather than using General Fund money to pay the County's portion ofthe buffer. Chairman Huntingford stated that the Committee did a lot of research and review on these applications and he thinks that their rationale on the recommendations is well-founded. It would be difficult for him to override their recommendation. Chairman Huntingford stated that he has concerns with the Tarboo Valley Conservation project. Commissioner Titterness suggested that ifthe NWI offices are moving to Port Townsend, this could be considered a change in address and not a change in the applicant. Chairman Huntingford understands why the creek channel in the valley is being reconstructed and protected, but one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to protect farmland. Much of the property is already in a farming program. There seems to be a lot of leverage of other properties. It sounds like a great proj ect, but it is difficult for him to see how the project fits together at this point. He added that sometimes it is not clear how the Conservation Futures Ordinance ties in with the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Christensen suggested that the criteria for an application could be clarified to protect "agriculture in an ag area" or "wildlife in a wildlife corridor." Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 . Barbara Pastore explained that follow-up after the funding is awarded is very important. If funds are committed, every year until those funds are dispersed, the applicant has to write to the Committee with an update on their project. They also check for applicants with strong track records in the County. The Committee recommends that the Conservation Futures funds not be dispersed until the other funding is committed by other funding sources. Commissioner Titterness moved to take $26,875 out of the Conservation Futures Fund for the Highway 20 Corridor Buffer project. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion carried. Chairman Huntingford asked the other Board members about the Quimper Wildlife Corridor application? Commissioner Titterness stated that he feels that Block 94 is contiguous except for the road. He moved to approve the total funding amount of $80,000. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness moved not to approve the funding for the Tarboo Valley Conservation project this year and suggested that the application be submitted for next year's funding cycle. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Josh Peters, Community Development Review & Adoption of Resolution re: In the Matter of Adopting International Codes: Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that Appendix A of the Unified Development Code is the County building codes provision. The UDC adopts national and state codes by reference. He introduced Senior Planner Josh Peters who will address the code revision and Stan Southworth, Building Inspector, who will address the technical review. Josh Peters explained that the draft resolution before the Board acknowledges that the International Codes are in effect beginning July 1, 2004. Last year the Legislature amended the law to include a process allowing the State Building Code Council to develop rules which were then adopted into the WAC. The Uniform Plumbing Code was the only code that wasn't changed. For people applying for single family and duplex building permits, the new codes will be easier to follow because they are all under the International Residential Code. For all other types of buildings, the International Building Code will apply. Projects vested before the IC will still be reviewed under the Uniform Building Code. Stan Southworth stated that the UBC that has been used for several years and it can be difficult to find information in it , especially for the layperson. In the International Code, the IBC establishes the occupancy of the building and ifthe occupancy is a single family residence or a duplex, the information is in a second manual specifically for residences. The manual is set up in the order a house is built from the foundation up. Al Scalf added that staff has attended training sessions and some of them are certified in the International Code. The Department is reviewing forms, handouts, and spec sheets to update them. Most ofthe permits submitted in the County are for residential buildings. He listed some of the changes. Commissioner Titterness stated that he would like to review the IC manuals before the Board approves the resolution. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 1:)"""" ....' -. "i:.":: ; -_.._<\~ "'1.~~~·",..i~'''' Later in the week: Commissioner Titterness noted that he found the IC to be an exceptionally easy code to access. He moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 33-04, adopting and implementing the 2003 versions of International Codes as of July 1, 2004 pursuant to rules of the Washington State Building Code Council. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday from 10:00 to 11 :00 a.m. for an Executive Session with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Community Development Director, and an Associate Planner regarding actual litigation. All three Commissioners were present. AGREEMENT re: Installation of New Jefferson County Courthouse Front Doors; Jefferson County Central Services; Little & Little Construction: (See Item #6 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Rodger asked if this project was put out to bid? Facilities Lead Loring Bemis explained that the design/install option was substantially lower when the process first began approximately 10 years ago. In order to meet the Historical Preservation Code, the decision was to hire a contractor who could do the complete job at one time. The local contractor will do the structural historical preservation requirements, acquire the manufacturer to replicate the doors, and do the project management. A maximum cost of replacement of 100% of the wood that is being replicated is $35,000 and this had to be added to the amount in the agreement. This may not need to be used. Four doors will be totally replicated. Two will be stationary and two will be sliding doors. The original doors will be crated and securely stored. Currently, the operation system of the doors is inadequate and obsolete. Developing sliding doors eliminates the congestion at the bottom of the stairs. Commissioner Rodgers noted that he is not opposed to having new front doors, he is opposed to the cost. Loring Bemis stated that the woodwork will probably last another 100 years and the mechanical system should last 30 years. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the agreement with Little and Little Construction for the installation ofthe new front doors for the Jefferson County Courthouse. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday. All three Commissioners were present. DECISION re: Fred Hill Materials: Chairman Huntingford stated that the Board needs to make a decision on the proposed Fred Hill Materials Mineral Resource Lands Overlay, MLA02-235, a Comprehensive Plan amendment that was remanded to the County by the Growth Management Hearings Board for additional environmental review. The review was completed, the Board held a public hearing, and there was a workshop after the public hearing where the Board discussed the proposed amendment. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez reviewed the record. · FHM made application for an MRL in April, 2002 for 6,240 acres in an area south of SRI 04 Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28,2004 IJ·"·,,,·,',:,',·,' ~..·':,,__i ~1,~11' !'>r.i"'" · The application went through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and on October 25, 2002, FHM's Attorney sent a letter suggesting a 765 acre MRL instead of 6,240 acres. · Staff issued a combined GMA/SEP A report around November 25, 2002 with the MRL reduced to 690 acres to provide a 500 foot boundary from Thorndyke Creek. This was approved by the Board in an ordinance dated December 13, 2002. · The decision was appealed by the Hood Canal Coalition to the Western Washington Growth Management Growth Hearings Board. · The Hearing before the Hearings Board took place in June, 2003 and the County received the decision around August 22,2003. The detailed decision ruled that the County had complied with GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, and the UDC when the 690 MRL was adopted. However, the SEP A analysis was inadequate because the three alternatives had not been adequately discussed. The three alternatives were: a 6,240 acre MRL, a 690 acre MRL, or no action. · The County did additional environmental review because the Hearings Board ruled that only the 690 acre MRL had been adequately studied during the process that lead up to the combined GMA/SEP A report from Staff. · An RFP was advertised for the additional SEP A work and 4-5 companies applied. Wheeler Consulting was chosen and prepared the draft supplemental EIS which was available in March, 2004 and analyzed the three alternatives in more detail. · The Hearings Board's final order in 2003 said that Pit-to-Pier project analysis could be done at a later date and they understood that the County was going to issue a DS on the project. This is a project action distinct from the legislative action on the MRLO. Mineral lands designations serve to put the County in further compliance with GMA. The County has an obligation to designate and protect mineral resource lands because they require nuisance and notice provisions. GMA is very specific about protecting mining activities from the neighbors, not protecting the neighbors from mining activities. One of the larger sections of the draft SEIS was a detailed transportation analysis which indicated that there would only be a .7% increase in truck traffic on SRI04 between Lofall Road and the Hood Canal Bridge. During the hearing, the Hearings Board asked several questions about truck traffic. · All three alternatives were addressed in the draft SEIS. The SEP A rules opened the draft SEIS for comments for 30 days. Six comments were received, some of which were from the petitioners. The final SEIS was issued May 12, 2004. The deadline for the compliance report to the Hearings Board was May 25, but the Superior Courtroom was over capacity for the public hearing which had to be recessed and reconvened on June 9 at Chimacum School Auditorium. Several hundred people attended the hearing on June 9 who were on both sides regarding the designation. · The Board has had a chance to study the three alternatives and they have been reasonably informed of the environmental impacts that mayor may not occur as the result of designating the MRL. Both the draft SEIS and the final SEIS say that there are no unavoidable impacts that can't be mitigated on the 15 conditions that the Board originally imposed in the ordinance approved on December 13, 2002. Commissioner Titterness stated that there is a lot of history regarding this issue and a lot of division in the community. During the original amendment process, the Board had several discussions regarding the environmental review of the three alternatives. However, that information was not included in the SEP A document. He feels that the decision before the Board today is a "housekeeping" issue. People ask, "Why Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28,2004 'J,.. .~ do we continue to hear that the MRL is about protecting resources?" In the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that the County is supposed to protect resources. He feels that the public is well served in the action that is proposed for the MRLO. The GMA says that the County needs to encourage economic development and protect natural resources. The Comprehensive Plan says that the County needs to encourage resource based economic activities. Anything other than that would be contrary to the laws and the codes that have been adopted. The Board needs to be consistent with the laws that are adopted. He added that he is not particularly in favor of the other project that has been woven into the background of the MRLO designation, but that is not the decision before the Board. Commissioner Rodgers reiterated his reasoning process to get to the decision. Is the MRL, by itself, independent of anything else that may happen, a worthwhile pursuit? The MRLO would allow the mining to go deeper into the ground and additional resource would not be available without it. It protects the ability to extract the resource and is a worthwhile process that allows the capture of a resource that would be unavailable in another method. In reading the draft June 10,2004 ordinance, it clearly states that this is a stand alone procedure. It also states some of the concerns that the Board has about any other type of proposed project. The MRLO is perfectly consistent with the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan and he can support the amended MRLO. Chairman Huntingford explained that the Board has discussed the need to get a clearer message out to the public on the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier project. In reading through the draft documents, he thinks that this has been done. In his mind, the MRLO is a line on the map, an area where mining is proposed. Before FHM starts mining, they must submit an application and go through full environmental review on a project specific basis. The Board sees the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier project as two separate things, and the Pit-to- Pier project will have to live or die on its own merits. Very few people are opposed to FHM staying in business and providing jobs, but they really have concerns for Hood Canal and a pier in the Canal. They feel that if the MRLO is approved, it sends a message to the next group of decision makers that Jefferson County is supportive of this project, therefore, you should give it some approval. In the last deliberations meeting, he suggested reducing the size of the MRLO and limiting it to ground transportation only. The Prosecuting Attorney has indicated that this would not be possible at this point in the process. The findings of fact and conditions include the environmental review for mining in the new area and additional review for marine transportation. Staff has added findings of fact that address the Board's concerns. Chairman Huntingford read the additional findings of fact into the record. 138. When a project specific action (like construction of a conveyor and pier facility is proposed) the new project specific action E1S, which has not been started, will focus on the impacts and alternatives including mitigation measures specific to the project action proposal. These impacts will be analyzed to a degree not possible through the non-project EIS for designation of an MRLO. Because this non-project action is focusing primarily on development regulations that would apply to mining in an inland forested area, the DSEIS and FSE1Sfor MLA 02-235 will not have any relevance to a marine transport proposal. This means that when a project specific E1S process is started for a marine transport proposal we will be starting the SEP A process from the very beginning. This will include ensuring that the EIS prepared for the marine transport proposal is the County's document by ensuring that the consultant reports directly to the County, the process that occurred during the preparation of the DSEIS and FSE1S for MLA 02-235. The project specific E1S will then follow the Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 "\ EIS process which will include scoping the issues, issuing a DEIS for comment, and addressing the comments in the FSEIS. 139. After the SEP A process is completed, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Conditional Use Permit for a conveyor and pier facility would be reviewed at a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 14 O. The conveyor and pier within the shoreline jurisdiction would be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit before the Hearing Examiner. The criteria for a shoreline review are found in the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act (Section 5 of the UDC, RCW 90.58 Shoreline Management Act; WAC 173-27 Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Provisions). For actions on Shorelines of Statewide Significance (i.e. Hood Canal), there are additional local and state protections. If the proposal does not meet all of the criteria, the proposal will be denied. The WA State DOE makes the final decision on all Shoreline Conditional Use Permits. Numerous other State and Federal approvals would also be required. 141. The Zoning Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed at the same public hearing as the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit before the Hearing Examiner. The 12 approval criteria for a Zoning Conditional Use Permit are found in the Section 8.8.5 of the UDC. If the proposal does not meet all 12 criteria the proposal will be denied. 142. The BOCC has the initial impression that a pier facility (Pit-to-Pier) proposal contemplated by the applicant does not meet all of the twelve (12) approval criteria, including thefollowing: 8.8.5(1) whether a pier facility in Hood Canal is harmonious in design, character and appearance with the development in the vicinity; 8.8.5(3) that a pier facility in Hood Canal is detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity; 8.8.5(4) whether a pier facility will introduce noise, dust, vibrations, and other conditions (like light & visual impacts) to uses or property in the vicinity; 8.8.5(5) whether a pier facility approximately 90 feet above the Mean Lower Low Water Mark (MLLM) will unreasonably interfere with allowable development or uses of neighboring properties; 8.8.5(6) whether ship openings to the Hood Canal Bridge associated with a pier facility would impact traffic in the vicinity of the proposal; 8.8.5(7) whether a pier facility would comply with all State and Federal requirements, including potential impacts to threatened and endangered species; 8.8.5(9) whether a pier facility would cause significant adverse impacts to the human and natural environment that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; 8.8.5(10) whether a pier facility with the limited job creation, limited revenue benefit to the County, potential impacts Hood Canal and to the Hood Canal Bridge (i.e. ship/barge collision with bridge) has merit and value for the community as a whole; 8.8.5(11) whether a pier facility is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; 8.8.5(12) whether the public interest suffers no significant detrimental effect from a pier facility. David Alvarez pointed out that since the Hearings Examiner is considered an employee representing the County, Finding #142 could be considered premature without seeing the merits of the total project, and this could cause problems. He suggested putting that finding into a separate resolution. Community Development Director Al Scalf interjected that, as a point of process, the Hearing Examiner removes any information brought forward to him from the County Commissioners in an open record hearing. He does not consider the information in his deliberations. The position of the County comes through the staff report that is based on certain criteria. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 ......'''- t"...~ ,- After a brief discussion on Finding #142, Commissioner Rodgers asked if "applicant does not meet" could be changed to "applicant may not meet?" David Alvarez agreed that the revised language is acceptable. Chairman Huntingford stated that he would like to have these additional findings of fact included because he feels that they raise the issues on behalf of the citizens that have those concerns. The Board concurred that they have heard the citizens' concerns and they feel they are valid and need to be addressed. Commissioner Titterness pointed out an error in Finding #34 on page 9. He said that it should read, "mining would never reach below a point that was less than 10 feet above the seasonal high water mark." On Finding #55, he listed additional policies in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that he feels should be referenced, specifically Economic Development Policies 6.2 and 6.2.1 which encourage the establishment of new sustainable resource based activities; Natural Resource Policies 2.1 to 2.4; Natural Resource Goal 7.0 and Natural Resource Policy 7.3. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt the previously adopted 690 acre Mineral Resource Land Overlay with the additional findings offact as read by Chairman Huntingford, and with the change of does to may in Finding #l42, the addition of policies and goals from the Comprehensive Plan, and the correction regarding the water table. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion. Commissioner Titterness asked David Alvarez if Condition #14 on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was updated to reflect the submittal of the Pit-to-Pier Project application? David Alvarez read #14 which states, "The application for a conveyor and a pier facility for barge loading in Hood Canal has previously received a threshold Determination of Significance (DS) from Jefferson County requiring the preparation of a project action environmental impact statement (EIS)." The Chair called for the question. All three Commissioners voted for the motion. MEETING ADJOUf~~Qt~:.· " ' " :. ,- , ,'''''') (''''I ' SEAL: \ t"~ '", .' J " I . ~ I I ':0. 1 " JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER ; " .. ~ \ " " : '4;. , . l/l .J' , .... ~ ATTEST: (1 u,.. u ~~r?(¡;vcf~' ('rilC ¿JiÚie Matthes, CMC ) Deputy Clerk of the Board Dan Titterness, Member ~ PatrIck M. Rodgers, Member ----...,. Page 12