HomeMy WebLinkAboutM090506
District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers
County Administrator: John F. Fischbach
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of September 5, 2006
Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David
W. Sullivan. Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers had an excused absence.
PROCLAMATION re: Jefferson County Employee Recognition Week: Several members of
the Public Employees Recognition Committee (PERC) were present when Chairman Johnson read the
proclamation designating the week of September 5 through September 8, 2006 as Jefferson County Public
Employee Recognition Week.
Judi Morris, Chair of PERC, stated that the committee is made up of a volunteers representing each County
department. The 2 major events scheduled annually to recognize employees are the Tax Blues Breakfast in
April and a BBQ at in September. At the BBQ, employees will receive their service award pins. The
proceeds from the food and soda sold in the Employee Breakroom at the Courthouse and occasional raffles
pay for the recognition events. No public funds are used.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the proclamation as presented. Chairman Johnson seconded the
motion which carried.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING: John Fischbach reported on the following
items:
· He issued a press release last week regarding the State Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development grant award for $60,000 that the County received for a commercial and
industrial land analysis study. The contract will be on the Board's agenda within the next few
weeks.
· A King County Councilmember sent a letter to the Board asking if they are interested in forming a
state association of health boards. The Board agreed that WSAC does a good job lobbying on State
issues, including public health issues, and forming another organization isn't necessary.
· The next stakeholder workshop on the Port Hadlock Sewer Project is scheduled for October 10.
· The Board received a letter regarding some unsafe tree stumps at North Beach Park. They will be
removed. (Later in the meeting the County Administrator reported that the stumps were removed.)
· The County issued a building permit for a house on private property on the Quinault Indian
Reservation and the Tribe said that they will arrest his contractor. The Tribal Police don't have the
authority to do this according to the County's Legal Counsel. The County Administrator is
contacting the Quinault Tribe's attorney.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 5, 2006
· The Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) for the Master Plan Resort project in Brinnon should be
completed and to the County soon. The developer only has a few weeks to meet the deadline for
submission.
Approval of the Minutes: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the minutes of the
August 28, 2006 meeting as presented. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion which carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: some
people commented about the letter to the newspaper that Commissioner Sullivan wrote in response to an ad
by the Republican Party; the Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SP AC) and the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) Sub-committee are dealing with similar critical area issues, both committees need to have
clear direction about the timeframe for adoption of their recommendations, and the SP AC needs legal advice
about integration of the Shoreline Master Program into the Comprehensive Plan; Island County's CAO and
the solution they developed for managing agricultural practices was touted by the WWGMHB as an example
to follow; several people asked that the Board request more time from the Washington Environmental
Council (WEC) to enable the CAO Sub-Committee to develop an ordinance based on local best available
science (BAS); the CAO is a bi-partisan issue that affects all citizens and it needs broad community support;
concern was expressed about the lack of an agenda for the County Administrator's meetings with the Board.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan
moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion which carried.
1. HEARING NOTICE re: 2007-2012 Six (6) Year Transportation Improvement Program; Hearing
Re-Scheduled to Monday, September 18, 2006 at 10:05 a.m. from Monday, September 11,2006 in
the Commissioners Chamber
2. AGREEMENT re: Courthouse Telephone System Maintenance; Jefferson County Central Services;
Stargate Technologies
3. AGREEMENT re: Castle Hill Telephone System Maintenance; Jefferson County Central Services;
Stargate Technologies
4. AGREEMENT re: Sheriffs Office Telephone System Maintenance; Jefferson County Central
Services; Stargate Technologies
5. AGREEMENT NO. C13035, Amendment No. 11 re: 2005-2006 Consolidated Contract; Jefferson
County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health
6. AGREEMENT NO. HC04-13, Amendment No.3 re: Onsite Sewage System Monitoring and
Testing; Extending Period of Contract; Jefferson County Public Health; Puget Sound Action Team
7. AGREEMENT re: Provide Emergency Labor and Equipment for Two (2) Years; Jefferson County
Public Works; Winney Construction Company
8. AGREEMENT NO. 4015371702 re: Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan. Amendment Process; Jefferson County Public Works; Green Solutions
9. Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Community Park Improvement Grant (2); 1) Purchase two
Gas Powered Brush Cutting Tools, Backcountry Horsemen; 2) Purchase Hand and Power
Equipment, Quimper Trails Association
10. Rural Arterial Program Prospectus; Jefferson County Public Works; County Road Administration
Board (CRAB)
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 5, 2006
HEARING re: Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish, and Wildlife Protection Plan:
Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Neil Harrington, Environmental Health Department,
introduced Al Latham from the Jefferson County Conservation District who gave a presentation on the
development of the plan. The first settlement agreement with the Washington Environmental Council
entered into in February 2002 had a provision that stakeholders develop a plan for the protection of fish and
wildlife habitat on existing and on-going agriculture in the Chimacum watershed. In July, 2002, there was a
public meeting to brief Chimacum Creek landowners on the process and a committee of volunteers was
enlisted at the meeting to develop a voluntary plan for protection in the watershed. The committee met from
July, 2002 to July, 2005 to develop the plan that is before the Board for adoption. The Growth Management
Act (GMA) recognizes that agriculture is as important as fish and wildlife habitat and this plan is a
voluntary framework to protect fish and wildlife habitat that exists on agricultural land in a manner that also
allows agriculture to continue. This is a "living" plan and may evolve over time if the definition of
agriculture changes. The idea of the plan is to protect the existing (as of June, 2003) functions offish and
wildlife habitat in and adjacent to streams on agricultural land. Most of the focus was fish habitat, because
the committee felt that wildlife benefits would accrue from protecting fish habitat. Water quality is defined
as: 1) documented in the "Water Quality Screening Report," June, 2001 to June, 2003 by the Conservation
District, 2) existing presence or absence of woody debris in the stream, 3) riparian buffer characteristics, and
4) channel morphology.
The plan is performance based and uses the best available local science. It is based on water quality
monitoring that has been done. This plan accomplishes the same objectives as the Whidbey Island plan
except it doesn't require a Conservation Plan. The plan is based on voluntary compliance and if the water
quality monitoring detects a problem, the landowners will be contacted so that the problem can be resolved.
If the property owner tries to work it out, but it can't be worked out and damage is being done, the property
owner could lose their agricultural exemption from the Critical Areas Ordinance. In Jefferson County,
agricultural landowners have taken on many voluntary efforts to protect fish and wildlife habitat for over 20
years.
Commissioner Sullivan asked about the water quality monitoring that is being done. Al Latham answered
that he thinks Chimacum Creek is adequately monitored with 16 stations. There are fewer stations in the
other watersheds, but there is less agriculture in those areas. The stations in all the watersheds bracket
agricultural operations. They are doing what they can right now with the available resources.
Commissioner Sullivan asked about preferences for funding? Al Latham explained that the next phase in
the process is to develop plans for the rest of eastern Jefferson County and for the West End that are
modeled on the Chimacum Plan. There are some federal and state programs to help out with funding, but
they are competitive grants. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the County has attempted to this point to
fund the Conservation District without any assessment. Al Latham replied that funding is needed for
implementation of best management practices on projects.
The Chair opened the public comment portion of the hearing.
Norm McLeod, stated that monitoring is key because there isn't good science without good data.
Monitoring creates a good baseline that will show improvement over time. The monitoring tools need to be
in place. Trying to develop regulations based on modeling doesn't work in east Jefferson County because of
the microclimates.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 5,2006
Lige Christian, stated that he is member of the Conservation District Board and was on the committee that
helped develop the plan. The plan was developed in an open public process. The presence of ongoing
monitoring by the Conservation District is the central part of this plan. Actions can be based on data. Now
data needs to be collected in other areas of the County to develop and maintain plans and monitoring
requires funding. The base funding will probably have to come from the County.
Tom Jay, stated that he is in full support of the Conservation District's approach to this plan. In the past
when the management of water and water resources was the responsibility of private citizens, the health of
the watershed was affected because some people took responsibility for the common good and others didn't.
The plan encourages agricultural use and preserves it in a healthy way. It also mandates the restoration of
watershed functions through monitoring. This is a win-win situation. The County may want to look at
establishing levies or a taxing district to fund the work that needs to be done and provide grants and loans.
Everyone should share that cost. At the last meeting of their community association, 95% of the people
were in favor of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Chimacum Plan is a refinement of it. He appreciates
the work that went into it and thinks it should be implemented.
Al Latham noted that after the committee developed the plan, it was sent out to everyone in the Chimacum
watershed that would be impacted by it. They held a public meeting to take comments and only 6 people
came, but their comments were positive. They also held a meeting in Quilcene to begin the process of
creating a plan for that area. The people at that meeting suggested adapting the Chimacum Plan to the rest
of the County. The Conservation District plans to continue the process this fall in order to reach the
deadline for the settlement agreement.
James Tracy, stated that he recently read the decision ofthe Growth Management Hearings Board in favor of
the Whidbey Island Plan. The Chimacum Plan has a few differences, but it could be the basis for an
alternative form of regulation which would satisfy a Hearings Board review for protection of critical areas.
He asked what the adoption of the plan means ifit is a voluntary plan? Will there be findings of fact and a
resolution like with any other plan? Does this plan integrate with the basin plan, the WRIA 17 Plan, and the
existing Comprehensive Plan? Is that a subsequent step? The County may want to look at some semantic
differences, such as the use of the word exemption instead of alternative regulation because exemption
implies some kind of failure to protect. Alternative regulation says "we will protect it by a different
method." It is mandatory instead of discretionary. It might be stated in a more forceful way such as: "an
alternative regulatory mechanism that has the desired result and is supported by field testing and
monitoring." This would be a stronger defense.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that it was noted earlier that Whidbey Island's Plan requires a Conservation
Plan and the Chimacum Plan doesn't. James Tracy replied that one of the past issues in the appeal oflocal
Critical Area Ordinances to the Growth Management Hearings Boards has been the notion of "failure to
protect." No one knows exactly what "protect" means. When the cases are reviewed and the regulations are
found to be voluntary or discretionary, they fail to meet the legislative mandate to protect. It has to be an
affirmative form of legislation that accomplishes the legislative objective.
Lige Christian, noted that his understanding of the Chimacum Plan is that if a landowner does something to
cause the values that are being monitored to fail, there are several voluntary mechanisms to reverse this so
the monitoring values all come within the specifications. It is based on data and local science rather than
ethereal factors. If a person does not come into spec, the people who are doing the monitoring are finished
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 5, 2006
with the person and they lose their exemption under the plan. At that point, they will have to deal with
whatever mechanism is beyond that. Within the Chimacum Plan, local people work with the landowner to
get compliance so that the monitoring stays within spec.
Al Scalf, Director of Community Development, stated that DCD recommends that the Board adopt the
Chimacum Plan as a stand alone resolution similar to the watershed plan. He stated that this is not a GMA
action in intent, but is a local community plan generated through the Conservation District and the County's
Natural Resources Division. Ifthe County has to go before the WWGMHB for appeal of the Critical Areas
Ordinance, this document would be attached to the exhibit list as a finding of fact and would be subject to
review by the Hearings Board as a legal matter. If it is adopted as a stand alone resolution, it will not be
subject to the GMA appeal process.
Norm McLeod, stated that if this plan is to be expanded throughout the County, there is always the question
of the individualized conservation plan, or whatever form it takes. He doesn't know if the Conservation
District has the staffing for the increased workload and additional resources would be required. The plan
may need to be expanded as agricultural definitions change.
Al Latham explained that a conservation plan is kind of a default that many people use to show that
everything is okay. These plans cost money and staff time. New landowners use them as a guide. Other
landowners don't look at them. The Conservation District's emphasis has always been to address the
problem through implementation and best management practices.
Hearing no further comment for or against the Chimacum Plan, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that he wholeheartedly supports the spirit of the plan. and how it was done.
He feels that this is the direction to go.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to have staff draft a stand alone resolution adopting the Chimacum
Watershed Agriculture, Fish, and Wildlife Protection Plan. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion which
carried.
HEARING re: Interim Ordinance No. 05-0410-06 Rescinding Chapter 18.18 Within Title
18 of the Jefferson County Code and Formally Re-establishing the Previously Existing Rural
Designations and Standards for the Future Irondale Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA): Chairman
Johnson opened the public hearing. Brent Butler, Associate Planner, explained that Interim Ordinance No.
05-0410-06 was adopted by the Board on April 10, 2006. A public hearing is required when an interim
ordinance is adopted.
Al Scalf reported that as a result ofthe Growth Management Hearings Board's invalidation of the UGA
section of the Jefferson County Code (JCC), Section 18.18, interim controls were required and this
ordinance was adopted and put into place for six months. It rescinds the UGA regulations in Port Hadlock
and returns the area to rural development standards. The JCC implements the Unified Development Code
(UDC) and JCC Section 18.18 is Appendix D of the UDC. The interim control is in effect until October 10,
2006.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 5,2006
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing.
Russ Hillman, Nordland, asked ifthis public hearing was advertised? He said that no one is aware that the
UGA is being killed and going back to rural standards. He asked that the hearing be rescheduled so that
more people can attend and comment.
Brent Butler stated that the hearing notice was published in the legal section of The Leader, the County's
newspaper of record, on August 23, 10 days before the hearing. He noted that he received written testimony
from Nancy Dorgan.
Commissioner Sullivan clarified that the County isn't killing the UGA. The proposal is to continue the
interim ordinance until the UGA comes into compliance with GMA and the Hearings Board order. He said
that there is a lot of work that has to be done first, especially on capital facilities planning and this work is
currently being done.
Russ Hillman, replied that his understanding is that the plan is for this six month ordinance to go into
another six month ordinance and then the UGA project will be killed permanently.
Both Commissioners stated that it is not the plan. Chairman Johnson said that the County is moving ahead
on the sewer study. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the maximum time for an interim ordinance is six
months and the ordinance will need to be re-adopted until urban regulations can be put in place for a UGA
in the Tri Area.
Mike Belenski, asked if there is anything in the public notice in the newspaper that says where to go to get a
copy of the information?
John Fischbach replied that the legal ads list where citizens can obtain information on the hearing.
Mike Be1enski requested that hearing notices list the possible consequences of the legislation if it is
approved because the wording of the legal notices is vague or difficult for most people to understand. He
suggested that the hearing notices also be posted on the County's website. He feels that more people need
to be involved in the public process. Mr. Belenski also commented on other issues that were not relevant to
the subject of the hearing.
Hearing no further comments for or against the interim ordinance, Chairman Johnson closed the public
hearing.
Al Scalf stated that there are two mechanisms under GMA regarding the adoption of zoning regulations.
These regulations can be adopted as an interim control which is valid for six months and requires a public
hearing within 60 days, or as an official control which goes to the Planning Commission, has public review
and a public hearing, and when it is adopted it becomes part of the UDC. A UGA was designated in Port
Hadlock through an official control and development regulations were created to implement the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC were amended to include
the UGA in Port Hadlock. This was appealed to the WWGMHB and the County received a final decision
and order from the Hearings Board that invalidated both the Comprehensive Plan designation and the
development regulations for the UGA. The County was ordered to follow-up with an interim control. The
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 5, 2006
.o~.."".''f.1
~. :::
~-i"\'1fI\<(\,lJ'"
interim control is a placeholder and it is important to leave it there so that when the sewer plan and other
capital facilities planning is completed, we can bring the UGA back. At that time the interim control would
be rescinded and the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations would not have to be reworked.
JCC 18.18 will become the development regulations to implement the UGA. The time frame is within the
next year. It appears from public comment, that a workshop may be needed to clarify the issues. We will
also provide more information on the web site.
Brent Butler reported that the Planning Commission will be holding specific hearings regarding the five
different areas in the Comprehensive Plan related to the UGA that the WWGMHB found invalid. The
public is invited to attend any of the Planning Commission meetings. Al Scalf also gave the website
addresses where information can be found regarding UGA planning and the sewer project planning. The
Planning Commission meetings are listed on the website and advertised in the newspaper.
The Board agreed to keep the interim control in place until October 10. A second interim ordinance will be
on the Board's agenda at that time.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at
11: 1 0 a.m. until the next regularly scheduled Commissioners' Meeting or a Special Meeting as noticed
according to the statute and have the Chairman sign a notice of adjournment. Chairman Johnson seconded
the motion which carried.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
f~~W4
Depaty Clerk of the Board
Page 7
September 5, 2006
Page 1 of2
HEARI~fGt\ Rf-" ""~O" RD.
. ''' ~:'~ ,~_ pr:3
. H..' . ~ J '. t.,(9 .
Leslie Locke
From: Lorna Delaney
Sent: Friday, September 01, 20062:17 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Comments re Interim Ordinance 05-0410-06 Rescinding JCC 18.18
Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager
Jefferson County
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Ph: 360-385-9133
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 12:46 PM
To: Lorna Delaney
Cc: Brent Butler
Subject: Comments re Interim Ordinance 05-0410-06 Rescinding JCC 18.18
September 5, 2006
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Re: Interim Ordinance No. 05-0410-06 Rescinding Chapter 18.18 Within Title 18 of the
Jefferson County Code and Formally Reestablishing the Previously Existing Rural
Designations and Standards for the Future Irondale Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area
Commissioners:
Thank you for finally scheduling a very belated public hearing for the rescission of the invalidated
urban regulations for the Irondale/Hadlock UGA. Sixty days from adoption is the norm for public
notice and hearing for interim ordinances, and sixty days was specified in Ordinance 05-0410-06
itself. We are now well beyond sixty days from April 10th. After numerous false starts and
faulty planning, the County needs to be particularly scrupulous regarding required process and
GMA compliance as it goes forward with its urban planning efforts.
I would prefer that the BOCC adopt a final ordinance for this matter, particularly since further
legislation for urban development regulations will still be needed for UGA designation. Also,
interim ordinances cannot serve as the basis of a county's request to have invalidity lifted by the
Growth Board.
I would also like to see additional specific ordinance language rescinding Appendix D of the UDC,
9/1/2006
September 5,2006
Page 2 of2
because that was the adopted location of the urban regulations. They were not adopted as "JCC
18.18".
Would you also please consider the following revisions to the ordinance title:
"Reestablishing the Previously Existing Rural Designations and Standards for the rtlttll c.
Irondale Port Hadlock Urban GrowthSty'QyArea
Thank you,
Nancy Dorgan [by email]
2137 Washington St. #7
Port Townsend, WA 98368
cc: Brent Butler, Department of Community Development
911/2006