Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUDC Settlement Agreements with Washington Environmental Council (WEC) 2002 2006 2007SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement are Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council. This Agreement is entered into this day of . I , 2002. WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code ("UDC") on December 18, 2000, through Ordinance 11-1218-00, in an effort to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the Washington Environmental Council ("WEC") filed an appeal of the UDC, raising concerns with regard to floodplains and channel migration zones, wetland mitigation ratios, wildlife habitat and agricultural exemptions; and WHEREAS, personnel representing Jefferson County and WEC have met and conferred in an effort to reach agreement on addressing the issues raised by WEC's appeal of the Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") when adopting Ordinance 11-1218-00, identified "best available science" in relationship to wetlands and riparian buffers as one of six areas of concern to be the subject of future study and review, anticipating the consideration of proposed revisions to the UDC dealing with those six areas of concern by March 31, 2001. WHEREAS, the parties wish to afford Jefferson County an opportunity to make changes and improvements to the UDC without forcing the parties to incur unnecessary costs, time and resources in litigating WEC's appeal, now, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1- 402539 vl / 30313-010 1. Floodplain and Channel Migration Zones. 1.1 Jefferson County will identify flood hazard areas and channel migration zones of the major eastern Jefferson County rivers, i.e., Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene. After completion of the study, the County shall develop regulations for public safety, capital facilities and habitat function, and a UDC amendment will be enacted that adopts new buffers to be measured from the outer edge of any channel migration zone that protect riparian functions. 1.2 As an interim measure, the County will review proposals that are within 300 feet of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (FWHAs) and their buffers. County staff will look for evidence of a migrating channel. If one is found, a Habitat Management Plan will be required. The project proposal will be required to be located outside of the channel migration zone plus a buffer distance that is determined necessary to protect riparian functions in the Habitat Management Plan. 1.3 In order for an applicant to obtain a reduction in standard setbacks, the applicant will be required to submit a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) documenting mitigations to minimize habitat impacts. 1.4 In the event that the delineation of channel migration zones has unintended consequences harmful to other GMA goals, the County may seek alternatives that are supported by Best Available Science and are consistent with GMA. 2- 402539 v1 / 30313-010 1.5 Timelines The County will complete the study described in Section 1.1 within twelve (12) months of execution of this agreement, and adopt the regulations called for in Section 1.1 within twelve (12) months of execution of this agreement. 1.6 Habitat Management Plans All HMPs prepared pursuant to Sections 1.1 and 1.3 hereof shall be submitted to WDFW for review. WDFW shall be provided 28 days to recommend on-site conditions that mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. All conditions that mitigate the impacts of the proposed development that are recommended by WDFW will be incorporated as permit conditions by the County so long as comments are provided by WDFW within 28 days of receipt of the HMP. Any conditions proposed by WDFW would have to comply with constitutional and other legal limitations on government regulation of private property. 2. Wetland Mitigation Ratios. 2.1 Jefferson County will amend the Unified Development Code to require wetland replacement ratios for compensatory mitigation consistent with Washington Department of Ecology standards. This will be accomplished within twelve (12) months of execution of this agreement. 2.2 Copies of mitigation plans will be provided to the Department of Ecology for input and review. The County will not issue the relevant permit if DOE rejects a mitigation plan within 28 days after receipt thereof, unless the rejection is conditional, in which case the County may decide to issue the relevant permit with conditions suggested or requested by the Department of Ecology. Any conditions proposed by DOE would have to 3- 402539 v1 / 30313-010 comply with constitutional and other legal limitations on government regulation of private property. 3. Wildlife. 3.1 Within six (6) months of execution of this agreement, the County will develop a process for classifying and designating locally important species and their habitats, consistent with RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-190-080(5)(c)(ii). 3.2 After the process has been developed, the County will develop appropriate GIS data for local habitats and species and, as part of a landscape approach for habitat management, will develop strategies for protecting wildlife habitat. These strategies may include regulatory and non -regulatory approaches, and may or may not require changes to the UDC. These steps will be completed within twenty-four (24) months of execution of this agreement. 3.3 Prior to completion of the studies and strategies for protecting wildlife habitat, the County will update its records and use the Priority Habitat and Species database for environmentally sensitive area reviews. If a project is located within a fish and wildlife habitat area or wetland, or within 300 feet of a fish and wildlife habitat area or wetland, staff will perform an environmentally sensitive area review. 3.4 The wildlife habitat provisions of this Agreement (Section 3) will be implemented by administrative directive, effective within 60 days of execution of this agreement. 4- 402539 vi / 30313-010 3.5 Habitat Management Plans All HMPs prepared pursuant to Sections 3 hereof shall be submitted to WDFW for review. WDFW shall be provided 28 days to recommend on-site conditions that mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. Any conditions proposed by WDFW would have to comply with constitutional and other legal limitations on government regulation of private property. All conditions that mitigate the impacts of the proposed development that are recommended by WDFW will be incorporated as permit conditions by the County so long as comments are provided by WDFW within 28 days of receipt of the HMP. 4. Agricultural Exemptions. 4.1 Jefferson County staff will propose language to amend the Unified Development Code, which currently exempts all ongoing agricultural practices from the provisions of the UDC that relate to `environmentally sensitive areas.' The proposed amendment will limit that exemption so it would only apply to lands of long-term agricultural significance. The amendment will not include or mandate a specific enforcement program. The amendment will be adopted within twelve (12) months of execution of this agreement. 4.2 The County will commit staff and resources to collaborate with other stakeholders to develop a watershed -level plan for protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat on agricultural lands of long-term significance. The first priority for planning will be in the Chimacum Creek Basin. The restoration plan may be a voluntary program in which improving habitat could be addressed on a watershed scale. The plan will include goals, specific objectives, timelines, benchmarks and monitoring to ensure that the voluntary 5- 402539 v1 /30313-010 I approach will protect environmentally sensitive areas. A regulatory strategy based on Best Available Science will be adopted if the voluntary approach fails or is not employed. The voluntary approach will be considered successful if the following are completed: 4.2.1 The Chimacum Creek Basin plan has been completed. 4.2.2 A funding mechanism to implement the plan is identified. 4.2.3 A timetable for implementing the plan is identified. 4.2.4 A monitoring and certification of compliance plan is identified. 4.3 The Chimacum Creek Basin plan will be completed within twenty-four 24) months of execution of this agreement. Within 90 days thereafter, the County shall adopt a schedule for the preparation and completion by the end of 2006 of the remaining watershed plans, and adopt as Comprehensive Plan amendments the action items to implement the Chimacum Creek Basin plan. 5. Miscellaneous Provisions. 5.1 All special reports that are sent to state agencies for review will have a response time of 28 days from date of receipt. If no comments from the state agency or agencies are received within 28 days, then the permit will be processed without state comment. Any conditions proposed by the state agency would have to comply with constitutional and other legal limitations on government regulation of private property. 5.2 Jefferson County will list all special reports required on any applicable public notice (e.g., Habitat Management Plan, Wetland Mitigation Plan). This will occur within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. 6- 402539 v1 / 30313-010 5.3 Jefferson County will create a site on its website that lists all special reports that have been sent to state agencies for review. This will occur within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. 6. Appeal Remedy. 6.1 Washington Environmental Council agrees to dismiss the pending appeal of the UDC when the County complies with the terms of this Agreement. The County shall report to the WWGMHB on the status of implementation twelve (12) months after the execution of this agreement, and twenty-four (24) months after the execution of this agreement, after which the WWGMHB shall determine whether this Agreement has been implemented according to its terms and the appeal should therefore be dismissed. The parties agree that any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved by the WWGMHB. Regarding agricultural exemptions, the Washington Environmental Council reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means if the voluntary compliance program does not meet its objective of providing habitat improvements that allow for recovery of salmonid populations. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, acting in their role as the County legislature of Jefferson County, have reviewed and approved the terms of this Settlement Agreement and authorize the execution of this document by their appointed counsel, Mark R. Johnsen. 7- 402539 vl/ 30313-010 DATED this = day of :? ` , 2002. Roger Leed, WSBA #01378 On behalf of Petitioner, Washington Environmental Council 8- 402539 vl / 30313-010 Mark R. Johnsen, SBA #11080 On behalf of Respondent, Jefferson County a CO oN co 4 5 0 District No. I Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of March 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Dan Titterness in the absence of Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Glen Huntingford was present. APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of the weeks of February 4, 11, and 19, 2002. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. The motion carried. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith reported: The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit against the County regarding conditions at the jail including health care, environmental issues, lack of access to the courts, lack of staffing, and lack of access to reading materials. As a class action suit the first step is to define the size of the class. They are alleging 1983 damages which allows the prevailing party to receive their attorney fees. This has been turned over to the Risk Pool and an attorney has been retained. During the County Administrator's Association Conference, County programs were reviewed to determine which are discretionary and which are mandated. The possibility of raising the sales tax for more revenue was also discussed. The Board received a letter from the Fire District Commissioners Association asking for clarification on the Commissioners motion regarding the County's intent to form the Communications District. Commissioner Huntingford reported that he had a question from a citizen asking why the Senior discount on licences was removed from the Animal Services fees. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the top executives at the Port Townsend Paper Mill have agreed to take a 25% pay cut; the Board was urged to minimize the impact on youth and senior programs and County employees' jobs if budget cuts are made; when budget cuts are made, the belt tightening should come from the top to set an example for all the Departments; the Neighbors Against Asphalt Batching are disappointed that the contract with Lakeside Industries was Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 4 2002 V J approved last week because the Department of Community Development said they were "substantially" in compliance; Lakeside is not in compliance regarding aquifer protection and they don't have a current DNR permit; a request was made that a third party inspect the Lakeside site; if the County is using asphalt from Lakeside Industries, the County needs to require that it come from Lakeside's Port Angeles plant; the County was urged to avoid cutting on safety measures, taking shortcuts, and giving in when dealing with Lakeside's asphalt batch plant; a public records request for an internet usage log was answered with a disk of information which the requestor can't run on his computer and he asked that a computer terminal be provided for the public to look at public records; the Board should be holding the line and not send a Commissioner to Washington DC in a time when the budgets are tight; and there is a need for an open public process with the budget this year. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt and approve all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. RESOLUTION NO. 15-02 re: Making Technical Adjustments to Resolution No. 96-01 Establishing County Commissioner District Boundaries AGREEMENT re: Emergency Road Repair Services for 2002-2003, X01556; Jefferson County Public Works; Addleman Logging, Co. AGREEMENT, Supplement re: Engineering Services for Phase II of the Sheriff/Dispatch/Emergency Operations Center, Project #CC1543; Jefferson County Public Works; Northwest Territories, Inc. AGREEMENT re: Legal Representation in Mental Health Cases on Behalf of Jefferson County for 2002; Stephen Greer, Esq. REPORT: Public Works Trust Fund Emergency Loan Program Project #PW -00-691 -ELP-30 1; Close -Out Report WAIVER of County Transfer Station Tipping Fee for Groups Participating in the First All -Volunteer Chimacum Creek Park Cleanup"; Jefferson County Health and Human Services RESIGNATION: Jefferson County Parks Advisory Board Member; Judith French -Scott APPOINTMENT: City of Port Townsend Representative to Serve an unexpired term on the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG); Term Expires 4/26/03; Catharine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. a Robinson APPOINTMENT: County Administrator as Applicant Agent for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 10. AUTHORIZATION: Legal Counsel to Execute Unified Development Code (UDC) Settlement 11. LETTER: Regarding Certification of Ownership and Local Government Status to Assist in the Application Process for Funding the Jefferson County Courthouse Clock Tower Project; Jefferson County Public Works; National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services Page 2 W" Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 4, 2002 CALL FOR BIDS and Plan Approval re: Irondale Road Improvement Project #CR1107: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the call for bids for the Irondale project setting the bid opening for April 22, 2002 at 10:05 a.m. and to approve the project plans. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. WORKSHOP re: Saltwater Intrusion: David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator, explained that staff has reviewed the Hearings Board order and had discussions with State agencies to find ways to provide protection to the aquifer and allow the County to respond if there is a case of serious degradation to an aquifer. A series of aquifers feed the County which makes this task a challenge. An overlay zone for salt water intrusion areas has been proposed. County policies also need to address the potential for future degradation of the aquifer if there is salt water intrusion. Natural Resources Manager Dave Christensen reviewed the six summary findings from the Hearings Board order (see also Minutes of February 4, 2002) and the staff discussion paper dated March 4, 2002. The proposal for a 1,000 foot area as the salt water intrusion zone, is from a 1994 report that was done by a consultant on this issue. This report may, or may not be, the best available science for salt water intrusion. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he understands the best available science must be used. Dave Christensen then reviewed the regulatory elements ofthe draft policy and advised that it is on a fast track because the County only has 180 days to adopt regulations. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he thinks it is important to discuss the details in the policy and regulations and he asked when community members will be involved with this issue? He wants to see a committee look at the regulations as they are being put together. David Goldsmith added that the County must also develop a response if there is an area where salt water intrusion is found. In addition, an education component will be needed for people moving to the shoreline areas to advise them ofthe policies and regulations that are being developed. MEETING AWOUANii J FERSO CO OARD OF O O] SEAL: Wojt, 5 ATTEST: in untingfor ber CY1/12G Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board Dan Ti erness, Member Page 3 Consent Agenda Commissioners Office Item # JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Charles Saddler, County Administrator THROUGH: Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board FROM: Julie Matthes, Executive Assistant DATE: February 26,200A SUBJECT: Authorizing Legal Counsel to Execute Unified Development Code (UDC) Settlement Agreement #01-2-0013 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Possible resolution of the above captioned petition for review before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. ANALYSIS: The Board has been briefed on this issue previously. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commissioners authorize outside counsel to execute settlement agreement. REVIEWED BY: Z Charles Saddler, County Administrator Date f Lr' SECOND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The parties to this Second Settlement Agreement are Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council. This Agreement is entered into this day of 2001-. i WHEREAS, Jefferson County ("the County") was among the local jurisdictions obligated under RCW 36.70A.130(4), a provision of the Washington Growth Management Act GMA"), "to take action to review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter" by December 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, the County reviewed development regulations in the County's Unified Development Code ("UDC") that protect "critical areas," as defined by RCW 36.70A.030(5) but did not act legislatively to amend those regulations in the year 2004; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2005, the Washington Environmental Council ("WEC") filed a Petition for Review ("PFR") with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ("Hearings Board") alleging that the UDC protections for designated critical areas fail to comply with the GMA and its implementing regulations; and WHEREAS, WEC and the County previously reached a Settlement Agreement on March 26, 2002, ("Initial Agreement") in WWGMHB Case No. 01-02-0013, which arose from a PFR filed in 2001 by WEC after initial adoption of the UDC on December 18, 2000, by Ordinance 11-1218-00; and Second Settlement Agreement 1 WEC - Jefferson County 12/12/05 WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement addressed issues involving floodplain and channel migration zones, wetland mitigation ratios, wildlife habitat and agricultural exemptions; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the County and WEC agreed to the dismissal of WWGMHB Case No. 01-2-0013, without prejudice to issues asserted by WEC in Case No. 05-2-0006; and WHEREAS, the County satisfied most, ' but not all, 'of the terms of the Initial Agreement; and WHEREAS, in the 2005 PFR, WEC asserted those issues not addressed to its satisfaction by the County under the Initial Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to afford the County the opportunity to make changes and improvements to the UDC and avoid the unnecessary expenditure of public and private resources required to litigate the 2005 WEC PFR; and WHEREAS, representatives of the County and WEC have worked cooperatively to formulate the following agreement which addresses the issues raised by the 2005 WEC PFR; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that this Second Settlement Agreement shall incorporate certain terms of the Initial Agreement and shall replace the Initial Agreement, which shall no longer be in force and effect; Now, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Floodplain and Channel Migration Zones. Second Settlement Agreement 2 NVEC - Jefferson County 12/12/05 1.1 In connection with, the initial Settlement Agreement, Jefferson County and partners identified flood hazard areas and channel migration zones of the major eastern Jefferson County rivers—the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene. In order to protect public safety, fish and wildlife habitat and associated riparian habitat functions, the County shall enact development regulations that preserve the integrity of identified channel migration zones and establish buffers to be measured from the outer edge of those channel migration zones. The regulations will provide the opportunity for site-specific buffer review for development proposed within channel migration zone buffers. This review will be based on circumstances, such as topography, that are specific to the proposed development site. Approval of development sites within channel migration zone buffers may require implementation of a Habitat Management Plan ("HMP") to ensure protection of riparian habitat functions. The County will adopt these regulations within six (6) months of the date of this Second Settlement Agreement. 1.2 In the event that the delineation of channel migration zones has unintended consequences harmful to other GMA goals, the County may seek alternatives that are supported by best available science and are consistent with GMA. 2. Wetlands. 2.1 The County will amend the UDC with respect to regulatory protections for wetlands within six (6) months of the date of this Second Settlement Agreement. The County shall adopt the Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") 2004 Wetland Rating System and wetland management provisions that are consistent with Ecology's Wetlands in Second Settlement Agreement 3 WEC - Jefferson County 12112/05 Washington State. Vol Il.• Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (2005). For purposes of this section, "consistent" means a wetland protection program that is based on one or more of the alternatives described in Volume II. Any departures from the Volume II alternatives to account for local circumstances shall be developed through consultation with Ecology wetland specialists. 3. Wildlife. 3.1 Building upon the County's recent identification of core habitat areas and corridors in eastern Jefferson County (Tomassi 2404), the County will develop strategies for protecting wildlife habitat as part of a landscape approach for habitat conservation management. These strategies shall include both regulatory and non -regulatory approaches. 3.2 Within six (6) months of the date of this Second Settlement Agreement, the County shall adopt UDC provisions that establish enhanced regulatory protection for mapped core habitat areas and corridors for use when the County considers development permit applications involving proposed forest practice conversions (i.e., Class IV General FPAs) and land divisions. 4. Agricultural Exemptions. 4.1 The County will commit staff and resources to collaborate with other stakeholders to develop an agricultural management plan or group of watershed -level pians management plan(s) ") for protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on lands that sustain existing and ongoing agriculture. The first priority for planning will be the Second Settlement Agreement 4 WEC - Jefferson County 12/12/05 Chimacum Creek watershed. The management plans will describe sets of best management practices (BMPs) that will provide the basis for a voluntary program in which habitat protection is addressed on lands that sustain existing and ongoing agriculture, as defined in the UDC through Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 in correspondence with terms of the Initial Agreement. The management plans will include goals, specific objectives, timelines, benchmarks and monitoring to ensure that the voluntary program will protect critical areas and give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries" [RCW 36.70A. 172. (1)]. The voluntary program requires that the following necessary steps are completed through legislative adoption by the Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC"): 4.1.1 Adoption of the completed management plans. 4.1.2 Adoption of a funding strategy to implement the management plans. 4.1.3 Adoption of a timetable for implementing the management plans. 4.1.4 Adoption of a monitoring and evaluation plan. 4.2 The County will adopt the Chimacum Creek management plan within six 6) months of the date when this Second Settlement Agreement is executed. By no later than December 31, 2006 the County will complete items 4.1.2 through 4.1.4 for the Chimacum Creek management plan and items 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 (inclusive) for the management plan(s) addressing the remaining watersheds in the county. 4.3 In conjunction with 4.1.4 above, the County will adopt criteria that will be used to measure the success of individual management plans. The County will work with Second Settlement Agreement 5 WEC - Jefferson County 12/12/05 WEC to ensure that appropriate criteria are adopted. Monitoring results will be used to evaluate whether non -regulatory actions are protecting existing functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat in and adjacent to streams on lands that sustain existing and ongoing agriculture. 4.4 Exemption from standard stream and wetlands buffers for existing and ongoing agriculture will be revisited during periodic review of the Comprehensive Pian and development regulations, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130. However, if at any time the County finds through evaluation of best available science that the voluntary implementation of agricultural BMPs is failing to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts related to agriculture in any given watershed or specific areas within a given watershed, this exemption will be promptly modified or eliminated for that watershed or particular sites within that watershed, in order to meet the criteria adopted through fulfillment of 4.3 above. 5. Case Dismissal and Appeal Remedy. 5.1 Pending the County's satisfaction of the terms of this Agreement, the parties will mutually move for and stipulate to any necessary orders to stay proceedings in this case. The County shall inform WEC of the status of implementation twelve (12) months after the execution of this agreement. WEC agrees to dismiss the 2005 PFR when the County fully satisfies the terms of this Agreement. The County will be considered to have fully satisfied the terms of this Second Settlement Agreement when it has completed the following: Second Settlement Agreement 6 WEC - Jefferson County 12/12/05 5.1.1 Designation of channel migration zones and adoption of regulatory protections pursuant to Section 1 of this Agreement. 5.1.2 Adoption of revised regulatory protections for wetlands pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement. 5.1.3 Adoption of regulatory protections for areas mapped as core wildlife habitat and corridors pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement. 5.1.4 Adoption by BoCC resolution of the elements listed in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 relating to establishment of a protection program for streams and wetlands from potential impacts associated with existing and ongoing agriculture... 5.2 The parties will work in good faith during the implementation of this Agreement to consider mutually agreeable positions on matters that may arise in the implementation and amendment process. Regarding agricultural exemptions, WEC reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means, if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet ,its objective to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts related to agriculture. 6. Replacement. 6.1 The Initial Agreement between WEC and the County dated March 26, 2002 is hereby extinguished and replaced by this Second Settlement Agreement Second Settlement Agreement 7WEC - Jefferson County 12/12/05 The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, acting in its role as the County legislature of Jefferson County, has reviewed and approved the terms of this Settlement Agreement and authorizes the execution of this document by its appointed counsel, Mark R. iIi-T i DATED this 1 day of -J.A d u A k200 R6ger Leed, WSBA #Of378 On behalf of Petitioner, Washington Environmental Council Second Settlement Agreement WEC - Jefferson County Mark R. Johnsen, WSBA x#11080 On behalf of Respondent, Jefferson County 8 12/12/05 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 19, 2005 encourage cluster developments (PRRDs) whenever possible. If a critical area is put into the reserve tract in a PRRD, a 20% bonus density on the overall project will be given. Commissioner Sullivan referenced Chapter 18.15.485, page 79 (2Xa) (b) and (c). He asked how the maximum land area required for PRRDs was calculated? Al Scalf explained that, when the UDC was developed, Staffreviewed past platting to arrive at a pattern of size of projects. Commissioner Rodgers questioned why there is a maximum of 45 dwelling units in a PRRD? Al Scalf replied that there was concern about allowing urban growth in rural areas. The Board agreed that they want to encourage PRRDs and this subject may need to be reviewed. Commissioner Sullivan referenced Chapter 18.30, page 25, (b) (ii) regarding signs. He noted the change for perpendicular wall signs above grade from 6 feet 8 inches to 7 feet. He asked why it wasn't changed to 8 feet? Kyle Alm explained that 7 feet was chosen to catch the structure underneath the wall. Commissioner Sullivan referenced Chapter 18.30, page 28 where tfie language was changed to read can easily wash off equipment in used in mixing in production. He noted that there is an extra in that needs to be removed. Al Scalf suggested that the Board may want to have another discussion on the UDC changes before they have a public hearing. The Board agreed that they want to have more time for discussion at their January 3 meeting. Commissioner Rodgers moved to schedule the public hearing on the UDC Omnibus for January 9, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. and that the County Administrator be authorized to sign the hearing notice. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. All 3 Commissioners were present. The Board met in Executive Session from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Senior Planner regarding actual litigation. They came out ofExecutive Session and took the following action. Second Settlement Agreement, Washington Environmental Council (WEQ: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez explained that the Executive Session concerned the language in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the second settlement agreement with WEC. The latest version is acceptable to WEC's new legal representation. The action before the Board is whether to authorize Mark Johnsen, the County's outside land use attorney, to sign the agreement. Mark Johnsen is the attorney ofrecord for the County in the petition which is before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Commissioner Rodgers moved to direct Mark Johnsen to sign the second settlement agreement with WEC. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 6 AMENDMENT TO SECOND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The parties to this Amendment to the Second Settlement Agreement are Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council. This Agreement is entered into thisJ114 day of July, 2006. The parties agree as follows: The timeframe for implementation of Jefferson County's amendments to development regulations relating to flood plains and channel migration zones, wetlands, wildlife habitat and work associated with agricultural management plans is hereby extended. All provisions of the Second Settlement Agreement providing for amendments of Jefferson County's development regulations and work associated with the agricultural management plans are extended to January 18, 2007. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, acting in its role as the county legislature of Jefferson County, has reviewed and approved the terms of this Amendment to Second Settlement Agreement and authorizes the execution of this document by its appointed counsel, Mark R. Johnsen. DATED this 1&4 day of VI4 / , 2006 Michael Mayer WSBA # 32135 on behalf of petitioner Washington Environmental Council Mark R. Johnsen, W A on behalf of respondent Jefferson County THIRD AMENDMENT TO SECOND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The parties to this Third Amendment to the Second Settlement Agreement are Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council. The parties agree as follows: 1. The timeframe for implementation of Jefferson County's amendments to development regulations relating to flood plains and channel migration zones, wetlands, wildlife habitat and agricultural exemptions is hereby extended for an additional three months. 2. All provisions of the Second Settlement Agreement, as amended, providing for amendments of Jefferson County's development regulations to be implemented by October 15, 2007 are hereby extended to January 18, 2008. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, acting in its role as the county legislature of Jefferson County, has reviewed and approved the terms of this Amendment to Second Settlement Agreement and authorizes the execution of this document by its appointed counsel, Mark R. Johnsen. DATED this day of '" .. , 2007 r Leed, WS #01378 Mark R. Johnsen'SBA #11080 on behalf of petitioner on behalf of respondent Washington Environmental Counit Jefferson County 629749 v1 /30313-010 Regular Agenda 10:45 a.m. Commissioners Chambers JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners John Fischbach, County Administrator FROM: Leslie Locke, Deputy Clerk of the Board DATE: August 6, 2007 SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action re: Third Amendment to Second Settlement Agreement Extending Time Frame; Washington Environmental Council (WEC) vs. Jefferson County STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Discussion and Possible Action re: Third Amendment to Second Settlement Agreement - Extending Time Frame; Washington Environmental Council (WEC) vs. Jefferson County ANALYSIS: FISCAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: Review and Discuss Amendment. Possible motion to have outside Counsel Mark Johnsen be Authorized to Sign Third Amendment to Second Settlement Agreement with Washington Environmental Council. REVIEWED BY: 1. August 1, 2007 John lKschbach, County Administrator Date