Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121304 District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tittemess District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntlngford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 13,2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. Comment Letter re: Best Available Science (BAS) for Critical Areas: County Administrator John Fischbach presented a draft letter stating the Board's position on the State's recent proposal regarding "best available science." Jefferson County was required to review and update the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998 by December 1,2004. Best available science (BAS) regarding critical areas was recently proposed by the State Department of Ecology, but there hasn't been time to review it to see if it is appropriate for the County. The Board is concerned about adopting the latest BAS proposal without a review, especially since the State hasn't adopted it yet. Commissioner Rodgers moved to have the Board sign letters regarding their decision not to include the latest BAS in the Comprehensive Plan update to Scott Merriman at the Washington Association of Counties, the State Legislators, CTED, and the Chairs of the Senate and House Land Use Subcommittees with copies to DOE, Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound Action Team. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: John Fischbach reported on the following items: · The Upper Hoh River Road has been closed approximately 2 miles up river beyond the Westward Hoh Resort and the Hard Rain Café and Mercantile. The Oil City Road at MP 8.6, the Barlow Bridge, the Quinault South Shore Road, and the Gowens Creek Road are also being closely monitored. The problems were caused by previous flooding. · The Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) have scheduled a presentation to Port Ludlow residents on December 15 to review revisions to their development plan. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the Boy Scout house in Port Townsend is being dismantled and stored until another location can be found; is there County property available where it could be rebuilt?; and an offer was made to contribute $10,000 toward the project; what is the County going to do about enforcing the rat infestation problem on the Rook property and surrounding neighborhood?; an Elected Official thanked the Board for their hard work and their positive Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13, 2004 .'."" "".. §. ...............~ l,;'tl¡l,,\\1;"~ relationship with the Elected Officials over the past several years; a records request regarding internet use by County employees contained confidential information that was redacted but it will probably result in more records requests including review of employee personnel files and phone records; the first internet usage records request listed 950,000 hits in 5 days; in the second request, the internet usage dropped by 25%; and a request was made for the County to put the internet data on a CD in Access to make it more readable. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Tittemess moved to delete Item #3 and approve the balance ofthe Consent Agenda. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 14-1213-04 re: Imposing One-tenth of One Percent Sales and Use Tax for the Jefferson County E911 System 2. RESOLUTION NO. 78-04 re: Adoption of the Annual Budget Including the General Fund, Public Works, Special Funds, Jefferson County Road Construction Program and County Tax Levy 3. DELETED RESOLUTION NO. 79-04 re: Jefferson County Joining the AFRC and other Governmental Entities in Intervening in a Lawsuit as Co-Defendants (Washington Environmental Council v. Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands) (Approved Later in Minutes) 4. AGREEMENTS (2) re: Professional Services; Jefferson County Community Development; CP Communications 5. AGREEMENT re: Lease Office Space at 201, 201A and 209A West Patison, Port Hadlock; W.S.U.- Jefferson County Extension; Shold Business Park LLC. 6. AGREEMENT Supplement #1 re: Jefferson County Courthouse Site and Landscape Design and Documentation, CP 163 7 ; Jefferson County Central Services; SB & Associates 7. AGREEMENT re: Hearing Examiner Services for 2005; Irv Berteig 8. AGREEMENT re: Oral Health Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Cynthia Newman 9. AGREEMENT Amendment No.2 re: Breast and Cervical Health Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Seattle King County Public Health 10. AGREEMENT re: 2005-2006 Consolidated Contract #C13035; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Health 11. AGREEMENT re: Mutual Law Enforcement Assistance; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Westsound Regional EVOC 12. AGREEMENT #G0400080, Amendment No.2 re: Coastal Zone Management CZM306; Shoreline Master Program Update, Phase 1 Inventory and Analysis; Amending Scope of Work and Period of Performance; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Washington State Department of Ecology 13. AGREEMENT #S04-62600-040A, Amendment re: Growth Management Update; Amendment to Revise the Payment Disbursement Schedule (Amount not Changed); Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development 14. Concurrence and Authorization to Proceed with the Real Property Negotiation and Easement/Right- of-Way Acquisition; Larry Scott Memorial Trail, Segment 3, Project No. CRI069 15. Final Short Plat Approval; #SUB04-00005 Thacker Short Plat; 2 Lot Short Plat Off of Robinson Road and Daphne Lane, Brinnon; Ramona & Donald Thacker, Applicants 16. Request to Transfer Castle Hill Purchase/Sale Documents from NoteWorld Servicing Center to Jefferson Title; James McCarron Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 ."'''''. .. .....: .'~ ::: . ':~... ~1j'IJI",.;\0~ 17. Advisory Board Reappointment: Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Board; Two (2) Year Term Expiring October 23,2006; Kent Kovalenko, Murrey's Disposal and Michele Cox as Alternate 18. Advisory Board Reappointment: Representing the Conservation District on the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee; Four (4) Year Term Expiring October 14,2008; Dennis A. Schultz 19. Advisory Board Resignation: Jefferson County Substance Abuse Advisory Board; Marc Gordon 20. Advisory Board Resignation: Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Sharon Morgan 21. Advisory Board Resignation: Jefferson County Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee; Janet Kearsley Proposed Resolution re: Jefferson County Joining the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and other Governmental Entities in Intervening in a Lawsuit as Co-Defendants: (Item #3 on the Consent Agenda) Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands, is the defendant in this law suit. Chairman Huntingford noted that, as a member of the Board of Natural Resources, he feels that he needs to recuse himself from voting on this item. He added that he thinks it is in the best interest of the County to participate in the lawsuit. Commissioner Titterness agreed. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 79-04 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion. The Chair called for the vote. Commissioner Tittemess and Commissioner Rodgers voted for the motion. Chairman Huntingford abstained from the voting. The motion carried. At 10:05 p.m., the Board interviewed Linda Swisher, who is interested in serving on the Planning Commission representing Commissioner District #2. Proposed Ordinances to Adopt Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez and staff have prepared draft ordinances for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. He recommended that the Board discuss each amendment, deliberate, and then take action separately on each ordinance. Commissioner Titterness noted that there have been several requests for the current Board to defer action on these amendments. He read the RCW regarding Commissioners' responsibilities which clearly states that all County officials shall complete the business of their offices to the time of the expiration of their respective terms. He stated that he does not intend to leave this work for the incoming Board. MLA04-27 regarding the designation of "agricultural lands of local significance." This is the December 9,2004 version ofthe draft ordinance and lists 86 findings. Chairman Huntingford stated that he agrees with the revisions to this ordinance. He mentioned public testimony regarding the use of exempt domestic wells for small agricultural businesses. David Alvarez pointed out that there is case law from Kitsap County that supports the use of an exempt well for a commercial nursery that did not require approval from the State DOE. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 '."""" i .; ~ ~ ~ ~ "r;t INC."''' Commissioner Rodgers noted that he appreciates all the hard work that has gone into creating this ordinance and he is very pleased with the result. Commissioner Titterness stated that he feels this ordinance benefits all aspects of the community. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 15-1213-04, the December 9, 2004 version of the ordinance designating certain parcels as "agricultural lands of local importance" on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MLA03-232 regarding the airport includes Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments. There are 49 findings in the December 2, 2004 version ofthe draft ordinance. Commissioner Titterness stated that he thinks it is beyond the County's authority to designate an overlay regarding the flight approach pattern at the airport because that pattern is set by the FAA and can change at anytime. Commissioner Rodgers noted that a notice to title for adjacent properties was originally proposed that acknowledged the airport as an essential public facility. Since then, the Port, the PRQ, and the County have worked together to come to an agreement on the overlays. Public testimony indicates that some neighbors think the current airport operations are a nuisance. He feels that the overlays accomplish the same goal as a notice to title if people are willing to do due diligence, and he supports the overlays. Commissioner Titterness stated that he would not object to the overlay map as an informational document. Associate Planner Kevin Russell stated that Overlay #2 is based on the State DOT guidelines regarding a safety zone, and the overlay also corresponds with the FAA flight traffic pattern. The DOT guidelines encompass a larger area on the other side of the airport but because of the topography and the flight pattern, this wasn't included. The Board agreed that the overlay recognizes the current flight pattern. Flight patterns are determined by several things: the layout of the airport, the topography, the wind patterns, residential densities and facilities that require security such as Indian Island. Chairman Huntingford explained that during the public hearing he did not hear many comments about the overlay zones. The issues mentioned more often were the disclosure vs. notification language and the no nuisance provision. Commissioner Rodgers stated that, in his opinion, either word, disclosure or notification, could be used because the goal is to make sure that people buying property near the airport know it is there. The Airport Essential Public Facility is a tremendous asset and needs to be protected. Chairman Huntingford added that changing the zoning density around the airport also offers protection and agreed that either word will get the point across. He acknowledged that the public is still very concerned about the no nuisance provision. David Alvarez noted that a public nuisance is established by statute and falls into one of ten categories. A private nuisance is any other kind of nuisance that is not listed. He read the definition of a private nuisance from the RCW which is the obstruction of any highway, the closing of any channel or stream, whatever is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property and the subject for an action for damages and further relief He added that by statute, agriculture and forestry are not nuisances. There is also some case law indicating that something that is lawful cannot be a nuisance. When a person buys a property adjacent to the airport, the fair market value has already been increased or decreased because of the proximity. The Comprehensive Plan doesn't specifically state that the Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 .."" "", '" .. '"' - . ~-': ·"$!tIN(','IØ" County will protect the Port from nuisance lawsuits. In the section of the Comprehensive Plan regarding all essential public facilities it states that the County aims to adopt development regulations for essential public facilities which includes standards and criteria related to many issues including nuisance effects. People have the right to sue under the State law. Chairman Huntingford asked what is being accomplished by retaining the nuisance wording? Commissioner Titterness replied that it fulfills the conditions ofthe settlement agreement with the Port. Commissioner Rodgers asked the Deputy Prosecutor what protection the no nuisance provision would give to the airport? David Alvarez replied that the airport would have the same level of protection that forestry and agriculture have, but it would be by local ordinance instead of State law. The settlement agreement doesn't specifically talk about nuisance provisions but there is an implication in letter from Port Director Larry Crockett that the language stay as is in the UDC regarding the nuisance issue, similar to other provisions in the UDC such as mineral lands, etc. Commissioner Titterness stated that the County's best interest would be served by adopting the draft ordinance because it meets the conditions of the settlement agreement but it does not affect a property owner's right to sue. David Alvarez added that he believes it furthers the spirit and intent of the settlement agreement. Commissioner Rodgers moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 which includes revisions and additions to the Comprehensive Plan and UDC concerning the Jefferson County International Airport (MLA03-232.) Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board noted that the map showing Overlays #1 and #2, dated October 25,2004, needs to be included with ordinance. MLA03-244 is the airport proposal submitted by the People for a Rural Quimper. Al Scalf explained that and ordinance was not created to address this amendment because staff and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office are recommending that the Board not adopt this amendment. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that this proposal and the Port's proposal were closely related and the Board adopted the Port's proposal. Commissioner Tittemess moved to accept the staff recommendation and not adopt this amendment. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MLA04-28 regarding the update of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments. The draft ofthis ordinance is the December 6, 2004 version. Al Scalf stated that Part A addresses capital facilities, transportation, utilities, population, Appendix G revisions, and critical areas and "best available science." Part B is the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. The Board's additions from their last workshop will also need to be discussed. Commissioner Titterness noted that the ordinance doesn't show strikeouts and revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. There is a staff recommendation, a Planning Commission recommendation, and some Board recommended changes. Is there a difference of opinion about whether the Board's changes should be included? Al Scalf replied that staff is requesting that the Board consider removing language regarding specifics for UGA representation on the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. Staff also recommends that, on the SEP A proposal, the wording be changed to "a" planned action proposal. Staff recommends approval of the septic exemptions. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 .""'" ~ ,ft· :::~.; .' :~~ $'fn;~'~ Chairman Huntingford stated that he has concerns regarding proposed "best available science" (BAS) for critical areas and wetlands. The State is expecting the County to take action on something that hasn't been clarified at the State level. He doesn't feel it is right for the County to take action when the rules aren't defined yet. Jefferson County continues to be on the cutting edge when it comes to GMA appeals and Hearings Board's determinations of compliance and it is too small a county to continue to do this. His preference is to leave the determinations for critical areas, streams, wetlands and channel migration zones as they currently are until the BAS is clarified by the State. At that point, the County can go back and make changes because the "rules" will be clear. Commissioner Titterness agreed. He feels that it is not constructive to adopt ordinances to meet some future suggested criteria that isn't adopted by State agencies yet. He directed that the part of the ordinance that references the new setbacks be removed and that the existing rules be kept in place. Chairman Huntingford noted that it is true that science is constantly changing, but the effect those changes have on people using their property also has to be addressed and it is the Board's responsibility to find a balance. Commissioner Titterness referenced a comment by the Puget Sound Action Team. They requested that the County not utilize their low impact development standards as standards. Language needs to be included that those methodologies that are proposed in the low impact development workbook are acceptable as solutions for meeting the stormwater requirements. The County has already adopted the 2004 stormwater manual. David Alvarez advised that the Board could face an appeal if they fail to act and adopt the latest BAS. Commissioner Titterness stated that nothing has been adopted by the State agencies at this point and the Board doesn't want to adopt something before they do. Senior Planner Josh Peters noted that the County has received a critical areas assistance handbook of guidelines fÌ'om CTED and Volume 2 guidance from the DOE for implementing their suggestions regarding wetlands is still in draft form. They wrote the County a letter saying that the numbers aren't going to change, but the procedures may. Chairman Huntingford stated that upon reading the guidelines, he feels that the County already does this review on a case by case basis. Commissioner Titterness stated that DOE hasn't given the County anything that the Board will commit to. Josh Peters added that DOE has offered to come up and talk to the County about it. Commissioner Titterness reiterated that the Board doesn't have enough data fÌ'om the State to make a decision. State agencies need to be more clear. The Board concurred that the State needs to do their job to establish standards and until those standards are adopted, the County can't be out of compliance. Commissioner Titterness asked ifthere were extreme conflicts in the Planning Commission recommendations and the staff recommendations. Al Scalf stated that under Part B, staff recommended including four strategies regarding shoreline science in the Environment Strategy that the Planning Commission had recommended be deleted. Josh Peters stated that there were minor differences on some of the elements. Commissioner Titterness stated that if the Board is to adopt this ordinance, all the changes, no matter how minor, need to be noted. The Board directed that the deliberations be continued at 2 p.m. The Board then interviewed Pat Teal who is interested in serving on the Housing Authority representing the resident position. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13, 2004 ."" . , '" ..'!;. -4:; .':~.-: SftINC>~ Proposed Ordinances to Adopt Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: (See earlier in minutes.) Josh Peters presented the following documents to the Board regarding Part B ofMLA04-028, the Comprehensive Plan update: · A memorandum from the Planning Commission to Staff regarding the Planning Commission's tasks regarding Part B. · A cover sheet that the Board received in mid-November when most ofthe information on the amendment was transferred to the Board. · Notes from Staff that were developed during the process that list the differences between the Staff recommendation and the Board recommendation. Josh Peters explained that there is no document showing all the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and why they were made. Nor is there a document listing each instance when staff differed from the Planning Commission. Josh Peters reviewed each recommendation. Chapter 1 · Page 1-19: Staff retains the phrase ....and away from areas where growth would threaten valued natural features. The Planning Commission's version deletes that phrase. Commissioner Titterness stated that he sees the reasoning behind deleting the phrase because it may be probable that to direct growth to areas where services can be provided in the most effective manner and away from areas where growth would threaten valued natural features could be contradictory terms because of topography. The Tri Area is a good example. The Board concurred that they want to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation. · Page 1-21: The Planning Commission recommends adding the word needs as a GMA indicator. In most cases, staff agreed not to support the addition of language because the general objective of the update was to remove language. Commissioner Rodgers stated that if staff doesn't have a specific reason for not adding the word, he wants to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation. The other Board members agreed. Chapter 2 Chapter 2 is the Urban Growth Area Element that was completed earlier this year. No changes are recommended. Chapter 3 · Page 3-22,23,69, & 97: The Planning Commission's recommendation was to insert language promoting the revisitation of the Chimacum Crossroads as a Rural Village Center (RVC). David Alvarez explained that existing uses in areas need to be recognized and it is not really a village center, just 2 gas stations. Commissioner Titterness stated that the definition of a rural village center can also be predicated on past existing uses and there have been other uses in the past at the Chimacum Crossroads. David Alvarez stated that there isn't a prohibition against looking at this designation, but he questions whether facts support escalating it to that level. Josh Peters noted that this was discussed at the final Planning Commission meeting on the revisions and this is why staff didn't include it in their recommendation. This is adding language, instead of simplifying the plan. The Planning Commission is on record saying that they haven't changed any policies. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the Planning Commission is recognizing what is happening on the ground. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 ~ìk'!.: ~az' /\'IIl' Chairman Huntingford noted that there is a limited amount of property in the Chimacum Crossroads logical boundary that can be used for infill. The Board concurred that if the revisitation of the Chimacum Crossroads as a RVC is not added, it may still be looked at in the future, and they agreed not to add the language. · Page 3-70 to 76: The Planning Commission's recommendation is to eliminate all the sub-policies regarding operations of cottage industries and home businesses. The staff recommendation has some amendments to the sub-policies, but not total elimination. The Planning Commission's original proposal that went out to the public recommended amending some of the sub-policies and deleting others. Staffs version recommended some changes. David Alvarez stated that the sub-policies are needed to drive the development regulations. Staff thought that there was a need to retain the general direction in the sub-policies. Josh Peters noted that some ofthe deletions are specifically related to the Brinnon and Westend Sub-area Plans. Commissioner Titterness noted that he sees staffs point of view for retaining the directions. Commissioner Rodgers replied that specifics are more appropriate in the UDC and are already covered in that document. The Board reviewed the staff recommendation and noted items they want retained and items to be deleted. Al Scalf noted that not all the specifics are noted in the UDC. Kyle Aim reported that the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee spent a great deal oftime discussing this section and he did a consistency review with the UDC. If the UDC was more specific, it was deleted in the staff recommendation. The Board agreed to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding home based businesses and retain LMP 6.1.12 through 6.1.13 (new numbers) and the section on the full policy relative to the Brinnon and Westend planning areas; and to retain LMP 6.2.13 (new number) to the end of the section regarding cottage industries. Chapter 5 · Page 5-1: The Planning Commission recommends replacing the word complexity with existence. Josh Peters noted that because of the complexity ofthe issues, there is more than one element in the plan that addresses it. The Board concurred that the language be changed to because of the existence of complex housing issues. · Page 5-19: The Planning Commission wants to insert such as after environmental quality and before public health and safety standards. The Board agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Chapter 6 · Page 6-3: The Planning Commission recommends adding National Forests, private to the Open Space table under Resource Open Space, before forests and shellfish beds. Josh Peters noted that this is another addition rather than simplifying the language. The Board agreed to go with the staff recommendation. · Page 6-8: The Planning Commission recommends replacing Jefferson Land Trust or Land Trust with non-profit. The Board agreed to insert the language non-profits such as Jefferson Land Trust. · Page 6-23: The Planning Commission recommends deleting limiting the amount of lot coverage from the bullet list of techniques for preserving open space. Josh Peters explained that the staff recommendation is to leave the wording as is because these techniques are referenced elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan and in the UDC and eliminating this one reference won't change anything else. Commissioner Rodgers noted that the UDC lists the setbacks. Commissioner Titterness added that percentages of lot coverage in different zones are listed throughout the Plan. He suggested that Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 the language be changed to be more positive and to say varying amounts of lot coverage. The Board agreed to support the staff recommendation with Commissioner Titterness' wording change. · Page 6-24: The Planning Commission recommended that Policy 9 be divided into two policies. Staff feels that the second statement in Policy 9 is a follow up to the first statement. The Board agreed to take staffs recommendation not to divide the policy. Chapter 7 · The Planning Commission recommends adding the word accountable before organizations under Future Economic Development Prospects. David Alvarez stated that no other organization in the Comprehensive Plan is held to that standard and, if the organization is not working, it can be noted and fixed. Staff, with the goal of simplifying the Plan, saw no reason to add wording. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation. · The Planning Commission recommended deleting Policy 9.1 Promote economic development that does not adversely impact the natural or built environment. The Board agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Board's recommendations were reviewed and addressed. · Joint Growth Management Steering Committee: The Board agreed that they have the authority and the need to have representatives on the Steering Committee from the UGA. The Countywide Planning Policies mention UGA representation. Josh Peters explained that at the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting in September, the entities agreed to meet in January to discuss UGA representation. Staff is of the opinion that if the Board wants to take action before that meeting, the Board needs to pass a resolution, and not an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Board agreed to leave the language out of the Comprehensive Plan and instructed the County Administrator to draft a resolution. · Page 1-12 and 1-13: The Board suggested language updating the table to include a non-municipal UGA. The Board and staff agree with this recommendation. · Page 1-15: A statement was developed by David Alvarez to implement the direction provided by the Board on November 15. The Growth Management Hearings Boards, which are comprised of three member panels appointed by the Governor were created to review Comprehensive Plans and associated development recommendations for compliance with the goals and procedural criteria for the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Hearings Boards' decisions provide not only legal guidance, but also a solid framework for preparation of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that decisions of our regional Hearings Board may be inconsistent or contradictory, the County understands that the State Legislature intended to have our regional Hearings Board show deference to a decision made by a local government such as this County in an effort to reconcile or remedy those inconsistencies and contradictions. The Board agreed with this language. · Land Use Policy 3.7: This establishes a policy for a regulation that exists in the UDC that will be revisited during the Omnibus package scheduled for the first quarter of2005. Chairman Huntingford asked if the wording regarding septic exemptions for existing dwellings is clear and that there are actually 6 different scenarios that these regulations will address? Al Scalf reported that the 6 scenarios were reduced to 2 scenarios in the UDC when it was adopted, but when the Omnibus package is reviewed, the document addressing the 6 scenarios can be referenced. The 6 scenarios were an attachment to the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (EICO) when the Comprehensive Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13, 2004 .. c~..'"~:¿ < Plan was adopted in 1998. The Board agreed that in order for a property to receive a septic exemption, the scenario had to pre-exist August 28, 1998. · PUD and Satellites: The Board suggested changes to reflect the current ownership of water systems since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. · Surface Stormwater Management Utilities: The Board directed that per the recommendation of the Puget Sound Action Team, the word standards be replaced with the word methodologies. · Economic Development Element: The Board directed that staff develop planned actions under SEP A for geographic areas such as the Master Plan Resorts, Urban Growth Areas, and LAMIRDs. Each of these geographic areas are designed to accommodate growth and the County needs to be more user friendly to allow for that growth. The Board concurred with this addition. · ENG 8.0: The Board asked that aphrase be added that states, Protect the habitability, environmental quality, and natural beauty of Jefferson County from the adverse impacts of development with respect to viewsheds and noise and mitigate impacts based on the conditions. The Board agreed with this language. Josh Peters noted that there were no more revisions to Part B by the Board. He added that the Planning Commission and staff were in agreement on Part A of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Transportation, Utilities, Capital Facilities chapters. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve Part A as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Alvarez stated that the Critical Areas Ordinance must be reviewed and revised as part of the 7 year update. He noted that, earlier in the day, the Board indicated they did not want to add references to the proposed best available science (BAS) until there is clear direction :fÌ'om the State regarding the standard. The Board stated that they have read all the comment letters. Chairman Huntingford noted that the County adopted the Critical Areas Ordinance in 2001 and there is still a high level of protection. Commissioner Titterness added that when the State comes forward with adopted BAS standards, the County's ordinance can still be amended. Commissioner Rodgers noted that the County is having tremendous success, especially with salmon on local rivers, with the standards adopted in 2001. David Alvarez asked the Board about the agencies' comments on marine shorelines? Commissioner Titterness replied that the State didn't justify their comments. They are asking the County to adopt regulations that they haven't adopted yet. Commissioner Rodgers referenced the Christensen report. Josh Peters pointed out that staff and the Planning Commission agreed on some moderate changes to the UDC as a result of the Christensen report. He asked the Board to clarify their intent not to approve those changes. The Board agreed that they want to adhere to the 2001 version of the ordinance without any changes. Chairman Huntingford reiterated that the State is not clear about the proposed standards for BAS. The proposed regulations could affect single family residences and citizens would be better served to have the Board re-adopt the 2001 version at this time. Commissioner Titterness added that it is the responsibility of the State to address and adopt these standards first rather than having local government be responsible. David Alvarez stated that Jefferson County has 500 square miles of commercial forest, 100 square miles zoned 1 residence per 5 acres or less, 89% of the County can't be permanently developed because ofthe timber and State and National Parks, and less than 1 % of the County is located in an urban growth area. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 13,2004 Commissioner Titterness moved to re-adopt Section 3 of the UDC, adopted in 2001, regarding critical areas. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt ORDINANCE 17-1213-04, adopting MLA04-028 as amended by the record that the Board generated with staff during these deliberations. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Resolution re: Temporary Closure of Upper Hoh Road: John Fischbach read the proposed resolution to restrict traffic at MP 7.0 due to a washout caused be flooding and erosion until the road can be stabilized and reopened. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 80-04 regarding the temporary closure of the Upper Hoh Road. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was adjourned at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday. All three Commissioners were present. Letter of Support for Consideration of Appointment to Governor-Elect Rossi's New Administration: Commissioner Rodgers moved to have the Board sign a letter of support to Governor-Elect Dino Rossi to consider Dan Wollam, Olympic Community Action Programs Executive Director, for appointment to his administration. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Approved (See Attached Document) Glen Huntingford, Chair - .~..-- .' ,~./~ -,- ;?,vÚ¿~~ C{Y}L { Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved (See Attached Document) Dan Titterness, Member ~~~. Page 11 1820 Jefl'ersoD Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 9.8368 December 23, 2004 Commissioner Tittemess moved to authorize Commissioner Rodgers to review and give final j approval for the minutes of December 6, 13, and 20, 2004. Chainnan Huntingford seconded the motion. The motion carried. ATIEST: /;L Glen Huntin oni, ~ gµ>~ Dan ~ess, Member SEAL: «d-1Mt:l ~ .. Lorna L. Delaney, CM~ /'" Clerk of the Board ~ ð PhoDe (360)385-9100 Paz (360)385-9382 jeØIIooa@ao,Jefrenoa....-