HomeMy WebLinkAboutclosed_caption17:33:36 And so.
17:33:41 When you solve the order, they need to cover our floor, 18, 2,100, and, 2, meeting, of, the, jersey start with a Alright.
17:33:55 Okay, not here yet. Thank you. Not yet.
17:34:02 Thank you.
17:34:05 Matt? Yeah, I'm here. Lauren, this is off the commissioner now.
17:34:13 Chris? Are you online?
17:34:18 Not yet. Mike, I'm here in which is here. We have a
17:34:27 You have an agenda, is there any concerns about the agenda?
17:34:32 Then, items 3 is approval of minutes. We have a set of minutes. October fourth, 2,000 point 3.
17:34:41 I like the internet, I'm willing to approve the mess, so moved. All in favor, raise your hand.
17:34:51 Thanks. Right, okay, And, We're all nervous. Yeah, We got late start and I expect a long meeting.
17:35:16 Any.
17:35:20 Not here. Okay. No.
17:35:25 Nope.
17:35:29 No, I guess. Hey, BCD staff and director updates.
17:35:38 Thank you, Chair. Start by saying that. DCD has submitted an agenda request to the Board of County Commissioners for this coming Monday.
17:35:49 October 20 third for the appointment of planning commissioners to districts. One and 2. And so if you're interested, that'll be on the agenda.
17:36:00 I think it's published on a Thursday or Friday. And I thought what time it's gonna be but they'll be some discussion at the board and some appointments there's 2 applicants
for district one and one African for district 2 at this point.
17:36:14 So. That's the story there, but by it all goes according to plan by next meeting, there'll be a full planet.
17:36:21 Also, you can see here just an upcoming schedule. The next meeting is scheduled to be November first.
17:36:27 And that will be the main focus of that meeting will be. The comprehensive plan amendment. Docket public hearing and potential deliberation and decision on November first.
17:36:45 And they could see some other dates there. If there is a chance like we talked about in the past that if we don't reach an I recommendation essentially on this shoreline master
program then we could have a special meeting on October 20 fifth.
17:36:58 It's gonna be up to the commission to decide what you want to do about that, but we have made preparations for that.
17:37:03 If we don't need that, then we'll Well, probably. Based on what happens tonight if the commission reaches a recommendation on the shoreline master program in principle, then
we'll take that recommendation and then prepare the documents.
17:37:18 For you to make a final action at your next meeting. But November first. If that happens.
17:37:25 And so you'll have a chance to read the full master program with all with any amendments or changes that you talk about tonight and or on October 20 fifth if that meeting happens
and then on November first will have all that material to you ahead of time along with a letter transmitting your recommendation to the board that you can then look at and essentially
affirm that it represents your recommendation.
17:37:47 So that's the plan there. I don't have anything else to add at this time other than.
17:37:52 We've had we've been onboarding staff this month. One last week and 3 this week, so that's exciting.
17:38:02 To have, you know, new energy, new blood in the arena, if you will.
17:38:05 And so things are going well in that regard. And I don't have anything else to add unless there's any questions.
17:38:12 Yes. No. Okay, then, move ahead to the next agenda item, which is. And this is the public company. Everybody has 2 public commentaries today.
17:38:28 The first one is for Comment on items or not. On the agenda. So, that would be the second comment created.
17:38:35 Good day. Did anybody have any comments on on the agenda?
17:38:43 I don't see any hands raised.
17:38:49 Thanks. We'll all close. The public comment created. 6.
17:38:57 It's what I forgot one thing. I'll just pass this around. I just wanted to bring people's attention to the fact that the board of counter commissioners in proclamation earlier
this month on the second and it was to recognize community planning month and so there's proclamation that I just wanted to pass around to you know just to gaze out at your leisure.
17:39:18 We put a copy of it on our whole page on DCD if you really want to see it and it's full seal and so forth but just wanted to recognize that you're engaged in community planning
and this is apparently our month of the year and the mission is is recognized in that document for the work that you do so thank you for the extra time.
17:39:37 Thank you.
17:39:39 We're up to our district agenda, but there is no consent agenda today, so we don't have to take any action on that.
17:39:48 And this gets up to our regular business. Which is deliberation on a to the shoreline master program for your dollars as you.
17:39:57 The commission to meet that afternoon is. Today. We have a
17:40:04 We're gonna stick with the agenda. So with the first step, Maybe an idea what's going to happen here.
17:40:10 We're going to have presentation. And then we will, And then there'll be a public comment period at deliberations.
17:40:19 There's not testimony. It's a comment here. Cause I'm, Go ahead. But yes, he's often using an hour.
17:40:30 Yeah, let's get, to get. Her screen share. I did wanna say that just before Lisa starts, what we're gonna do is go over this instead of a slideshow like like you've had in the
past here on the master program, we're gonna go over this staff report and it has a table that's a summary of all the comments that we received.
17:40:52 You know, of course not every single element but the main elements of each comment were extracted, put it at this table.
17:40:59 And so we thought in order to hit everything, we would go down this list. And Lisa would talk and I might have a comment about how staff has responded to the comments because
we have recommended some changes.
17:41:13 From the, no, September, twentieth public hearing version of the shoreline master program in response to some of the comments and also some of the additional research that we
did, most specifically going back and looking at these 2,009 recommendations from a state committee that studied.
17:41:30 Aquaculture in Washington state. So, that's how we're gonna do it.
17:41:34 And we thought that. You could add at your, at your pleasure, you could engage on any particular issue.
17:41:40 And have discussion around that and perhaps even reach consensus or make a decision about where the planning commission wants to go in any particular issue.
17:41:46 And then we can move on to the next issue and by that we would take care of all the issues.
17:41:50 First, we essentially handle all the aquaculture related issues and then some of the other issues raised by other parties such as fish and wildlife.
17:41:57 And the James County Squalling Tribe. So that's how we want to work at least.
17:42:02 I'm gonna hand it over to you. Let's get a mike check and see how well we can hear you.
17:42:04 Okay, can you hear me?
17:42:06 Yes.
17:42:07 Okay. And hopefully you can see my screen.
17:42:13 Yes. Yeah.
17:42:14 Okay. So I can. Go back and forth. Chair and Josh with between the staff report and then the attachment A.
17:42:26 So we can. Go, go to either as needed. As Josh mentioned, we, listed.
17:42:37 The comments. Received. Both written and, verbal and put them in this chart.
17:42:50 We start with the letters and then after the letters are the verbal comments. So Josh, as you would like, we can just.
17:42:58 Some of these have very similar comments, so I don't think we'll spend an equal amount of time per row.
17:43:05 Or, but. There's a lot. Here regarding aquaculture and then there's some regarding the WDF W.
17:43:19 So Josh, would you like me just to kind of start summarizing and, identifying.
17:43:25 The response.
17:43:27 Lisa and also just to. Just to say that the first comment is. You know focused on the issue of a conditional use permit and so I thought this this is a lifting a lift off station
if you will to really engage on that issue.
17:43:45 There are some very specific comments among the Taylor shellfish comments that that follow and so when I talked with Chair Hall about this we talked about just explaining this
issue in some detail and seeing where we land and then you could show on the attachment A that use table and explain a little bit about where we are.
17:44:02 But I wanted to start by saying for the benefit of the planning commissioners and the and those listening that
17:44:10 That every version that I'm aware of since 2021 till now has had Can we duck aquaculture as a conditional use?
17:44:21 And so from the Department of Ecology's perspective under shoreline management, a conditional use is a conditional use.
17:44:28 There's shoreline management, perspective under shoreline management, a conditional uses of conditional use.
17:44:30 There's shoreline substantial development permanent or an exemption from that. There's a variance and then there's conditional use.
17:44:33 And with variances and conditional uses, the Department of College has the final say. That's how the Shoreline Management Act works because we co-admister that act as a local
government.
17:44:43 The difference really that people have been talking about is the process that we use locally to get to the answer.
17:44:50 And we have our own process. It's not in the Shoreline Management Act or the rules.
17:44:54 It's our own process that we essentially gave ourselves to the unified development code about 20 years ago and that was to differentiate between whether we're going to go a
type 3 process that goes to a hearing examiner for a hearing.
17:45:11 Zoom in a decision or we're going to have an administrative process that the code administrator for Jefferson County decides.
17:45:17 And so there's the conditional A, the small a in the parentheses, that's an administrative, there's the conditional capital C, standard conditional use permit that goes to the
type 3 process.
17:45:27 Or there's the conditional discretionary in which based on the specifics of the application and the area that is being proposed for, the administrator decides whether according
to the criteria that's in the unified development code, whether it should go to a hearing examiner or whether it should be an administrative conditional use.
17:45:44 I also want to emphasize that the administrative conditional use, however you get there, is a type 2 process which has a public comment period.
17:45:53 It's just simply not a public hearing. Before a hearing examiner, but it is a public comment period and people who are interested in that permit process can submit comments
to the to the department just like other type 2 permits that we do before the decision is made or for example a SEPA threshold determination is finalized.
17:46:12 So that's how it works. But as far as theology is concerned, a conditional use is a conditional use in the world of shoreline management.
17:46:18 Just want to clarify that piece. And Lisa, if you could. Jump maybe jump to attachment A and show what we've what we've decided to do based on the comments that we heard in
the research that we've done since the last meeting.
17:46:30 Sure. And just before I do that, Josh, I thought it's worth pointing out this footnote to the table because our first response is just to acknowledge that the state rules.
17:46:43 Require that new GUI duck aquaculture have a conditional use permit. So really, I think when we get to the use table, the variations would be.
17:46:53 That this that the county has some discretion on whether to require conditional use permit for conversions or expansions.
17:47:02 So just wanted to point that out and then we can go to the use table here. So I'm gonna go to the.
17:47:09 Attachment A. And it's in order that things appear in the SMP. So that's why I'm going to the third page here.
17:47:18 This is the use matrix. And Josh, you were just describing these. Different versions of conditional use.
17:47:28 Conditional use administrator with an A. Discretionary with a D here. And these stars just mean go see the.
17:47:37 The rules for particular standards. That's what the stars mean.
17:47:43 And so the, updates here are in blue and the idea is to. Compared to the prior draft is to separate out new versus expansion or conversion.
17:47:58 And the new would have a standard conditional use.
17:48:05 In the priority aquatic and aquatic environments which is primarily where the activity would happen. The upland areas.
17:48:14 The natural. Is considered to be, pretty functionally intact from an environmental point of view.
17:48:23 So it would also have. Standard conditional use and in these Other places it would be a discretionary.
17:48:36 Conditional use however I think Josh it's fair to say there's not likely to be have under any of the upland environments not likely to have any activity.
17:48:45 And then for expansion or conversion, it would continue to be a standard conditional use under priority aquatic.
17:48:53 This goes to the 2,009 document that Josh was referencing from the state committee that looked at.
17:49:03 Aquaculture and the idea of using the aquatic designations to help distinguish the permit type.
17:49:09 So for conversion or expansion, priority aquatic being a more sensitive environment would. Continue to have the standard conditional use.
17:49:18 The regular aquatic would have the discretionary conditional use. Natural would continue to have the.
17:49:27 Standard conditional use and the rest would be discretionary. Again, it's unlikely there'd be much activity on the upland, but that's I think that's where we'd be much activity
on the upland but that's I think that's where we landed Josh.
17:49:38 Do you. Wanna add anything there.
17:49:40 Thank you, Lisa. The only thing I would add is just. Just to emphasize that we're really talking about Principally, I mean, there could be some.
17:49:49 So some upland activities associated with aquaculture. But like Lisa was saying, we're really talking about aquatic environments.
17:50:00 However, the shoreline environment designation for the upland would have an influence in one case and that would be for a quad for the aquatic environment, which is most of
most of the destination.
17:50:14 There's only so much priority a product on the map. It's mostly aquatic. And so what Lisa.
17:50:18 As Lisa said, for expansions or change of use from a from an existing aquaculture operation to GUI duck would be discretionary conditional use however except the if it were
adjacent to a natural designation upland, then it would be a full conditional use because of that natural designation.
17:50:38 The reason why we're recommending this approach goes back to the suggestions that are in that 2,009 report.
17:50:47 That and going back to ecology's response to our draft that we've sent them in 2,021 and that we provided again in June of this year to aology.
17:50:59 That you take if you take into account the upland designation that helps differentiate between between users and instead of having just a blanket approach.
17:51:10 So we took that to heart and that's what we're recommending. Any questions on that?
17:51:15 I know it's complicated. I guess I'm gonna. Reading that document.
17:51:22 I hear what you're saying, but isn't the response. The, to Begin and start and review all that process.
17:51:34 And in turn, if the county gets involved. We basically, a, set up similar type review processes that have already been done by the state is important.
17:51:52 I'm just understanding that. If I understand your question correctly, Michael, it's I guess let let me ask you, are you talking about the planning process to establish a Shoreline
Master Forget or a permit process to review a specific proposal.
17:52:03 Well, I'm talking about the permit process. We're, very, that farmer.
17:52:09 Be required to go through all the state processes in advance of the county. Is that my understanding? No, that's not accurate.
17:52:20 Yeah, so there may be some state process of which I'm not aware, so there may be some state process of which I'm not aware, but in terms of shoreline management act.
17:52:25 It's it's the, act is co administered by. By ecology and local government, whether city or county.
17:52:33 Ecology as the final say, not the first save. So the application comes to the local government.
17:52:40 It is just a substantial development permit, then we simply send it to ecology and they file it. They have the ability to appeal that local decision to the shoreline hearing.
17:52:50 Surely, from an exception, we don't even tell them about that. We just say, that's except.
17:52:55 Or a variance or a conditional use permit under shoreline management. We make the decision. However we make it, whether it's a hearing examiner or the code administrator, and
then we send that package, that decision and all the supporting information to aology and they have 3 weeks essentially to either confirm okay looks good or added conditions or change
conditions.
17:53:17 Or deny that permit. So that's how it works. Very similar to the process we're going through right now.
17:53:25 We're really drafting these and they will go back to the ecology for their final lesson.
17:53:31 It is similar except except in this case, at least we've gotten a chance to hear what ecology's feedback was while we're in the planning process.
17:53:37 When you're actually in the firm process, unless they're, you know, unless we ask for it or they're able to provide assistance, they're really, they don't even know what we're
doing.
17:53:45 Essentially, I mean, we maybe through the seat threshold, we they're alerted to it, but it's a little bit different in that regard.
17:53:50 And there's no. On the front side, impact from Department natural resources either. Department of Nets Resources gets involved if it's stayed on aquatic land and then it's involved
in the in the form of a lease.
17:54:04 And so it's a proprietary relationship and they have conditions and so forth for anyone who wants to use and stay on the clock, including aquaculture operations.
17:54:15 Except for they I do know for a fact that DNR will not Approval of beliefs or engage in another an extension of a lease until they know that all the state local permits are
in place in the federal permits.
17:54:26 So I would say that the federal permit process really might be a driver for an aquaculture operation because they might want to apply for that or make sure they have that federal
permit secured early in the process.
17:54:34 But in terms of the state, then DNR will wait for that shoreline permit to be issued or completed.
17:54:40 Before they will sign the dotted line. So I had it backwards. So did that actual point of entry to get this started for that type of farming is gonna have to start at Jefferson
County.
17:54:54 I can speak to the state part of it. So yes, for the state part of it, it's possible that if someone can apply for a federal permit and that's irrespective of the state process.
17:55:02 All right, thank you. I appreciate that. Block platform. Is the county notified that somebody's apply for federal preventivity or not necessarily?
17:55:13 There probably is some kind of mechanism, but I can tell you that we haven't been checking like the Army Corps website or sport or subscribing to their services.
17:55:28 It's, but it is something that depending on the nature of the, of the permit. That we, planner for our department might engage with other staff.
17:55:33 Some projects have, an HPA, for example, hydraulic. Project approval from fish and wildlife.
17:55:40 Aquaculture doesn't, usually, unless there's something that's, something that otherwise would require an HPA, but just, aquaculture operations still in our state, but.
17:55:49 But we often wanna see where the fans are with something or certainly that if the tribes engage in the permit process, they have a different relationship, they have a different
relationship with the federal government.
17:55:59 So it often gets all much together. Yeah.
17:56:06 Other questions? I just want to make a support. All the comments were really thought about, considered.
17:56:20 Well, balanced well, I like a lot of the changes that you've done want to improve.
17:56:26 Move quickly and give us a nuts and bolts of how you made it better because I think there's a lot of From my point of view, I support it.
17:56:37 Everything I've seen, I've been trying to read through as much time.
17:56:40 Appreciate that and, maybe it would be helpful at this point. I guess Lisa, could you scroll down just to the next section just so we can see how this is reflected elsewhere
in the code.
17:56:51 So there's the use table. I just want to make sure you understood what happened. Okay, there it is.
17:56:55 So here are specific the use table when it has the ass risk it a points to this section of the code is for each of these designations it talks about.
17:57:04 What the table is trying to say. So if there's any confusion about the table, just go to this section and you'll see what it's trying to say.
17:57:10 So I want to be clear about that and it describes what I just what I just described orally here to be a tech bigger, you know, I can't quite make that out.
17:57:24 I'm not gonna be able to read it, but yeah, there's stuff in there. I think I see one of the sections.
17:57:24 That one is a bit like the 4 the 4 line there. Yeah, looks like that's changed was made for example.
17:57:33 Yeah.
17:57:32 The blue highlights or the new, since the hearing.
17:57:38 Thanks, Lisa. And you did get this, this is online and you got it. You're able to access it online.
17:57:49 So we've got this, this is online and you got it. You're able to access it online.
17:57:55 So we didn't bother picking it out because when I printed it out, it really can't read it. It's like really small stuff. Yeah, I get a text.
17:57:57 So I' And this is something, again, you'd have, you could have more time to look, but look at, depending on the results of this conversation tonight, you know, when we get the
full program set up for your inspection and review prior to your formal final action you can take a closer look at exactly how what it says but what we could do is now we could go back
to.
17:58:16 The staff report if you like. Go back to the staff report and start looking through some of the other Comments, the Taylor comment because the letter had so many issues in it,
we've separated out those comments by individual issues and we could go over each of those ones.
17:58:30 See if there's under questions. Thoughts. Okay.
17:58:35 I wanna make enough that Crystal Ellen is trying to access the meeting. He says, Since we started pass code.
17:58:45 Yeah, shouldn't need one. Shouldn't need a password. I don't know.
17:58:52 Yeah, just click on the link. What do we got? We got a lot of people. Yeah, just gonna pass on.
17:59:01 Yes.
17:59:01 I guess. Is that like what? Like gosh, you should go through the comments. You want to go to the next slide?
17:59:15 Okay.
17:59:16 Just keep going with you. Lisa, I think 3 dash one is the next.
17:59:21 Yeah.
17:59:19 Right. So, the first 2 rows were similar, regarding the CUP process and we've just laid out the, the new approach.
17:59:30 Okay, so this 3 dash one. Was to acknowledge the importance of shellfish farming in Jefferson County, which we are acknowledging here in the response.
17:59:43 3 dash 2 is, to, point out. The provisions need to be consistent with state law and supported by scientific and technical information, which I think the team is in agreement
with.
17:59:58 But it's still the county does have. To create a permit process and ask for, information.
18:00:06 We have more specific changes about the requirements for the material that comes in. So we want to come back to this.
18:00:16 Certainly in the in the changes in a moment.
18:00:22 There was a comment about, changes to the SMP. Based on comments after the 2021 comment period.
18:00:31 And I think we just provided a link back to the summary of the comments from 2021. The ones made during the comment period as well as after were about aquaculture standards
and permitting.
18:00:46 And regardless, there is this. Hearing that just occurred on this draft and you're deliberating on it.
18:00:56 There was a request to go back to the. And so the acknowledgement here is that yes, the version from 2021 reflected task force input.
18:01:07 And had yet to go through the public or. Public hearing process. So we're still in that.
18:01:15 Response to agency. Producer and public comment. And then I think, we'll go through then, the updates to their submittal requirements for aquaculture.
18:01:35 That I think respond to not only this letter but also the tribes comments. So I'm going to switch over to attachment A and then I'm gonna ask Amy to unmute and walk us through.
18:01:52 Nope, go ahead.
18:01:48 That unless Josh you have anything before we Go there. Okay.
18:01:58 Okay.
18:01:59 We'll come back to some of the other changes, but I think, this table. Response to, being clear about what's required for submittal.
18:02:10 In response to the tribes comments as well as the producer comments. Amy, do you want? Start here.
18:02:16 Okay. Yeah. Basically I think what the tribe did and its letter was to take the application requirements that were included in our most recent.
18:02:29 Version of the SMP and then kind of added those columns to note and with a little x indicating whether that particular requirement was applicable to Finnish, GUI duck or other
shellfish.
18:02:45 So I really appreciated that they took the time to put that table together. And so we, pretty much popped it in as they, as they provided it and then it's all new text.
18:02:57 It doesn't show up as track changes because I wanted to be clear which changes. We made on top of the tribes recommended table.
18:03:06 And so those tracks just sort of highlight what is new from the tribes. Version of this table.
18:03:16 And the only new text really was just to pick up some additional language that didn't make it. Into that table when the tribe transcribed the list of requirements into the table.
18:03:26 So Hopefully that made sense. It didn't add any new requirements that you haven't seen before.
18:03:33 It's more just so that we're really transparent about how we modified what the tribe provided and how we've incorporated it.
18:03:39 And so I think this is really responsive to like the tribes. Fish and wildlife I think and then there was a number of other sort of producer comments and and others that noted
that the application requirements section in general was a bit difficult.
18:03:57 Or problematic for them. And multiple folks suggested that a table like this would would really be helpful. So that has now been incorporated and and there was also a number
of comments kind of to the preamble part of the code ahead of the table.
18:04:18 I think at our last version we had kind of a process saying that you needed to, you know, submit everything that was applicable and if something was not applicable, you know,
make your case for it and then the county could waive that.
18:04:31 And a number of folks thought that the kind of the waiver process was a little a little difficult to navigate and so I think with this table and then kind of flipping it around
so that applicants can omit information and I just noticed there's a double May May there.
18:04:51 Applicants can omit information that is, obviously kind of not applicable to an aquaculture proposal.
18:05:01 So if all of your activity, for example, happened to be in an upland area. And it was completely irrelevant, something to do with an aquatic environment.
18:05:09 Condition, then you could admit that. But as for all projects and applications in shoreline jurisdiction, the county can still request additional information.
18:05:22 So if. They felt like, you know, something was missing, then they could still ask for it.
18:05:29 I think, I think that pretty well summarizes. Changes there. And I think we tried really hard to be very responsive to all the comments on this issue and there were quite a
long list of them.
18:05:44 In the comment matrix that Lisa is going through, so. Hopefully this this helps folks who've.
18:05:51 Had some concerns about the application requirements piece of it and how that applies to GUI DECK and all the other types of aquaculture.
18:06:03 If there aren't questions for Amy now, I'll just switch back to the comment response summary.
18:06:10 I'd like to know that first of all, Okay. Okay.
18:06:18 Okay. So continuing on the 3 dash 6. This gets at the what we've discussed the discretionary CUP versus the standard.
18:06:32 I think we've covered. That.
18:06:37 But here we're trying to. Identify the county has number of things that it. Considers when it identifies.
18:06:46 The. The type in process for a conditional use permit. That I believe we've we've tried to address here.
18:06:59 There's additional. Request for requiring a discretionary CP, we've covered that.
18:07:10 With trying to vary the, whether it's a discretionary or standard based on. Either the whack rules or this 2,009 recommendation to vary by aquatic environment and as well we
considered the upland environment.
18:07:25 So now it's a mix of standard CUP. And discretionary CUP based on. The environmental condition.
18:07:34 . The shoreline environment designation and then on row 3 dash 8.
18:07:45 Wanting to see. It's, again, additional rationale for, varying the type of conditional use permit.
18:07:58 So. Our response is similar to what we've described. And then here we're getting at some specifics about.
18:08:10 Some of the standards in aquaculture. So I'm gonna switch back to the proposed text.
18:08:16 Changes. So Amy, maybe we can talk a little bit about. The height of floating, you know, the some of the standards that get at.
18:08:27 Culture. Which I think again we're going in order that they appear I believe so Amy I think this is the right place for us to walk through this.
18:08:39 I think it might not be in this attachment because we didn't propose any additional changes. I don't think based on that.
18:08:46 Oh, okay. Okay.
18:08:47 Comment. But just I think there was a question and. Some thought that they might be inconsistent.
18:08:57 Within the revised language and so we kind of took another look at that our purpose was to increase both clarity and flexibility, and we couldn't identify the inconsistency
so that that may be something that we'll hear more about.
18:09:14 But at the moment we aren't proposing any any additional changes based on the comment
18:09:20 Thank you. Then I think in row. 3 dash 10. There was a concern about a reference.
18:09:32 To other water dependent uses. And wanting to, ensure there was a change.
18:09:40 And then, I mean, I don't know when you want to switch back to the code, but we did suggest the change to respond to this.
18:09:48 Comment. To be more consistent with the whack rules.
18:09:54 Yes, so, if you wanna switch, maybe we could just look at it real quick. It's pretty straightforward.
18:10:01 It's just that VII there and we changed materially interferes and changed to significantly conflict and that's the language that the whack uses specifically.
18:10:13 And so that change seemed fine to make.
18:10:16 Okay.
18:10:19 And we did add the other water depended uses in a prior iteration, but that is also that's consistent with that wax section.
18:10:30 Right. Well then we'll continue on. Row 3 11.
18:10:38 Hmm.
18:10:38 Then I think we'll be switching back to the code.
18:10:43 So maybe it might be just be better to where we are making some changes for clarity and to correct some copy paste error.
18:10:53 That we had in. Where we wanted. Subsection E to B.
18:11:01 Yeah, yep. So this the same comment was made last time, related to A through F and we we attempted to respond but things got a little jumbled unfortunately when we were cutting
and pasting to patch the thing together so that is now fixed.
18:11:20 And in addition, in response to I think another part of that comment, we removed some additional language that seemed a little bit to be prejudging the, the predator control
measure.
18:11:34 Impacts and so that's now been removed so hopefully this is nice and tidied up and it is responsive to the comments.
18:11:45 Oh, and actually this is kind of jumping ahead a little bit, but related to C, several different commenters were concerned about the Predator exclusion devices being required
to blend with the natural environment.
18:12:00 Noting that there may be circumstances where you don't necessarily want it to blend. You might want to be able to see it so you could maintain it or for public safety reasons.
18:12:09 So people don't inadvertently. Overrun the area, that sort of thing.
18:12:15 So again looking at the whack and considering the comment, and that language of shall was turned to should.
18:12:21 So it should blend with the natural environment, but then we added some and less statements that should hopefully provide a flexibility so that you can consider things like
safety and navigation and operation and maintenance when determining sort of the the look of the exclusion devices.
18:12:47 There's questions about the adjustments to the predator control measures. We can switch back to the matrix.
18:13:04 Okay, and then I think we're on row 3, 12.
18:13:13 And I think here, Amy, you might wanna weigh in, but the. Identifying how the other non-county entities weigh in on.
18:13:28 On our culture.
18:13:28 Yeah, just a simple removal of a, a particular provision that required marking in accordance with Coastguard requirements.
18:13:40 That that was just redundant with the Coastguards requirements that you mark them for their requirements and so it was unnecessary to duplicate and we took another look at the
colleges handbook on the chapter and they on the subject of aquaculture and they did recommend that you don't.
18:13:56 Duplicate unnecessarily certain other government requirements. So that's been removed per request.
18:14:09 Oops.
18:14:10 And then we talked about the aesthetic qualities. Comment. Amy, I don't know if you wanna mention anything else here.
18:14:19 That we did change it. It's a should should
18:14:26 Yes. Yeah, I get, yeah, just consistent with the whack, the wacky is the word should instead of shell.
18:14:38 And so we've now changed it so that we also use should instead of shell.
18:14:45 This comment on 3 dash 14, there were, concerns about, section on, listed restrictions and I think.
18:14:58 Your review was showing that these were. And consistent with the whack rules.
18:15:06 Yes, that it was section subsection 6. We didn't propose any changes based on the comments, but did take another look at it and it's almost verbatim what the newer whack language
is regarding requirements for GUIDEs specifically.
18:15:27 And then comment 3, dash, 15. And we covered this but this is where the table of the middle requirements has been proposed.
18:15:38 To address this comment.
18:15:47 Alright, then in letter 4 there was another support for a standard CUP process. And we're suggesting, the standard CUP process where it's a priority aquatic and natural or because
wherever the wax says new requires it but otherwise we would do the discretionary.
18:16:13 Conditional use. That is Josh mentioned, it is a type of conditional use. This still has a comment opportunity.
18:16:23 Yeah, so in that sense, if I'm starting a new.
18:16:30 Foreign business. I have to go through the cup, but I've already input, have the business, I'm gonna expand it, then I go through the discretionary.
18:16:40 Is that what That is correct, except if you're in priority aquatic or adjacent to it in the natural designation, but mostly it's correct.
18:16:50 And the The only difference really again would be the code administrator with judge based on the proposal itself and the location of the proposal and other factors, whether
it should be a standard CP that goes to the hearing examiner or whether the administrator.
18:17:05 Himself or herself would make the make the the call and issue the decision. But both would go to the department of ecology that we talked about.
18:17:16 And at this point, actually, and again, thank you for your patience and going through that. There's a lot of information here.
18:17:22 Really, if, if you look at the table. All, even though we summarize these issues from the commenters based on when the comments came in.
18:17:31 We've already talked about all the issues really. We believe anyway that we're that we're primarily mentioned in those comments all the way up to row at this point to comment
12.
18:17:41 But I think unless there's an objection, you can kind of just skip up to Comic 12.
18:17:45 And then I was going to tell you, Lisa, we haven't talked about this really, but in comment 13 after we get through 12 just to look ahead a little bit that's the one from Fish
and Wild that we were gonna maybe put that one to the side and come back to it since a lot of the fish and wildlife comments don't have to do with aquaculture but a different issue.
18:18:02 So.
18:18:02 Okay.
18:18:03 Okay.
18:18:09 So I think. This comment, 12, aside from the CP process for aquaculture.
18:18:17 Did reference. support for the the county. Ensuring that buffer functions. Are protected even where they cross roadways.
18:18:33 So I think here, that we haven't changed the substance of the hearing draft.
18:18:42 Which would allow the, which was modified to, so that the administrator would decide independently or based on a report whether the buffer area.
18:18:52 On the upload side of a roadway is functionally isolated from the shoreline. Such that it provides insignificant biological or hydrologic functions and we've just noted that.
18:19:05 From an editorial point of view that we We like the sentence so much. We copied it twice, so we will.
18:19:10 Okay.
18:19:11 We will take it out.
18:19:14 Good, and this is a little bit of a veer from our culture, but since we already started to talk about, let's just handle it.
18:19:20 So. Just to rewind the The prior draft said that. Buffers would if there was a road cutting through the buffer.
18:19:30 That we wouldn't count essentially the part that's. Upland from the road, it only count the buffer up until the road.
18:19:37 And it was pointed out to us that, you know, there may be situations in which you might, which functionally that buffer is still effective and so We, it was suggested that we
copy another program, Mason County, I believe, which kind of went to the default on the other and and we went to a hybrid approach where essentially we would be a case by case basis
because not all situations all situations are different essentially when you get
18:20:01 to. So really it's it's based on either report or the administrators judgment about whether there's functionality.
18:20:08 And value from a buffer standpoint to the area that's beyond the road or not and then just treat each case on its merits.
18:20:18 And sometimes the report might be required to make that trust, then sometimes it'll it'll be demonstrable. So that's where we landed on that one. Yeah.
18:20:27 And going back, this kind of a You may have already addressed this and going back to few years ago when you're addressing this.
18:20:33 We talk administrator, that's you, is that correct? It was me up until Greg Baller joined the team.
18:20:37 To Greg Baller is the development code administrator. So that person. Will make that determination. That's correct.
18:20:47 Is there a decision every review by anybody else in the department or in the county. Sometimes he'll confirm with me as the director.
18:20:57 Certainly other staff members with expertise. Are involved depending on the case. Like we have someone who's a web, a trained wetland scientist.
18:21:02 So, but ultimately the code industry is kind of the way it works. Has to make a judgment call at some point.
18:21:07 It depends on the type of permit that perfect decision could either be appealed to the hearing examiner if it's a type 2 or 3 permit or time 2 permit I should say.
18:21:16 Or, or if it's a shoreline permit, it could end up going to the shoreline hearing score, which is a special body.
18:21:21 At the state level. If it's a type one permit, like a building permit, then somebody could take us to superior core. For that.
18:21:28 So that's how it's mitigated. Yeah. Before we leave off the culture, there, I looks like I'm set a team.
18:21:37 Why don't you need to comment on that yeah yeah we're gonna skip i was saying Lisa we're gonna skip the fish wildlife comment for now and come back to it and then jump to the
next one that talked about aquaculture and it looks like It looks like maybe even, let's see.
18:21:54 14 did the Marine Resources Committee. Letter does talk about aquaculture.
18:22:00 We may have addressed those issues already, but I'll turn it back to you, Lisa.
18:22:04 Yes, I think, they had one comment. I don't know, Amy, if we want to talk about it, but.
18:22:10 Basically, There was a concern about, they didn't specify in this letter which place, said water oriented instead of water dependent, but another comment letter.
18:22:23 Did identify a specific location that we agreed to change from water oriented to water dependent. I don't know, Amy, if you want me to show where that is, but.
18:22:32 That's a similar comment.
18:22:35 Yeah, I think we didn't know exactly which. Which water oriented to water dependent change they were referring to.
18:22:43 And I don't I don't think we found I don't think I found one that changed the in that direction.
18:22:49 So that one's a little bit of a mystery to me still, but the rest of their comments were, again, the rest of their comments were, again, related to the application requirements,
which we've changed and the application requirements which we've changed and the CUP question which we suggested kind of a slightly modified approach.
18:23:02 Okay.
18:23:04 Okay, and just to jump in for a second, these are the Marine Resources Committee letter also talks about.
18:23:09 The buffer averaging issue, but let's let's defer that to come back to when we come back to the Fish and Wildlife Letter after we get to the Aquaculture section.
18:23:18 So now I'm jumping ahead essentially to Letter 17 from the Jamestown Swallum tribe.
18:23:24 Right. And I believe we've covered, 17 dash one was the. Predator control.
18:23:37 Hmm.
18:23:31 Section that we went through where we. Correctly applied the location of this paragraph that was in the wrong place.
18:23:42 And made some edits based on the comments. So I think Amy walked through. Those re-lettered predator control.
18:23:51 Standards. And then. The table of application requirements, 17 dash 2 that response to their comment there.
18:24:04 And then, 17 dash 3, I think, Amy, I could switch back to the comments, I think.
18:24:11 Or the changes. Potentially.
18:24:13 Okay. Yeah, and what, the changes show is that we deleted that provision about the the county getting a third party to Review a report if it doesn't have particular expertise.
18:24:31 We deleted that, but that's primarily because it was redundant with a section of the master program that has kind of a blanket option for the county to request and to have a
third party review.
18:24:46 Reports. So.
18:24:50 It does.
18:24:49 So it doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen. It's just we don't need to say it.
18:24:54 In that.
18:24:54 In multiple places. Okay.
18:24:59 Okay, and. Josh, do you want me to just? Identify that a lot of these remaining comments were also related to the CUP.
18:25:11 Yeah, I think we're jumping in maybe comment 21 seems to be something maybe that's new we haven't talked about yet
18:25:22 Or maybe not, maybe that's, that may not really handle. So, if you look through the rest of the table.
18:25:28 We believe we've hit the major issues to do with our culture. So far, unless someone has something else you want to bring up or a question about anything's been discussed so
far about aqua culture.
18:25:42 Okay, at this point then maybe we will shift and go back to comment. 13, to fish and wildlife letter because this one and the MRC letter allow give us a chance to talk about
the the other issue that we've addressed here which is buffer averaging buffer averaging buffer, reduction in common line.
18:26:03 That whole subject.
18:26:08 Okay, so. I think we'll walk through the comments and then we can show the changes in the code.
18:26:17 But first, the letter from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thank the county for the changes made since they made their initial comments back in 2020.
18:26:32 And they were asking the county to change its standard shoreline buffer to be consistent with their riparian management guidelines.
18:26:42 Which are based on a site potential tree height, which is if a tree could grow, how tall would it grow given the No conditions in that area.
18:26:58 Any more, I guess, untouched. Situation. And so first we're acknowledging that yes, the SMP changes were as the proposal was developed in 2,020 and 2021 did respond to WDFW
and other comments.
18:27:21 What activities could happen within the buffer and the protection measures for the buffer. But we are, suggesting that their original letter didn't identify that as a change
for the county instead what the reference to the riparian management recommendations were as a source for potential and enhancement standards.
18:27:50 For where activities were allowed to occur such as on non-ing sites. So we wanted to make that Clear.
18:28:03 And then I think it would be worth. Hearing from Amy on why we think a blanket approach to using the site potential tree height.
18:28:13 Would be, potentially. Rubbing up against other provisions in the shoreline management act.
18:28:21 Yeah, and would just generally be very little bit difficult to implement on a property by property basis. So fish and wildlife has developed a site potential tree height mapper
tool that you can go online and it'll pop up with an aerial photo and then it's got all of these polygons all over it and if you could, you know, click on a particular spot.
18:28:42 If there's information there, if they have the soils information, then what will pop up when you click on it is the site potential tree height for that particular location.
18:28:53 And what species is based on like Doug for 231 feet and so that's the site potential tree height but if you go just you know a hundred feet to the north or you know 200 feet
to the south in something that looks pretty darn similar, you might see 187 feet pop up or 105 feet or 211 feet.
18:29:14 So it's very difficult I think to kind of apply that to a county. And particularly because there are areas that where there is no data.
18:29:26 And so there is no recommended site potential tree height information that pops up in the maper. So That's kind of that's one of the reasons I think just practically speaking
very difficult to apply and you've got a lot of parity issues on a adjacent properties having you know wildly different numbers pop up.
18:29:45 Also, there's been some discussion with ecology about this and I think they're still working with Department of Fish and Wildlife or there's conversations ongoing but some of
these buffer numbers in shoreline jurisdictions, these site potential tree heights would effectively preclude development in shoreline jurisdiction and the shoreline management act
is very specifically crafted and intended to allow for certain preferred uses, water dependent water oriented uses
18:30:15 to be conducted in that shoreline space within 200 feet of the ordinary watermark. So, you end up with a much bigger tug of war.
18:30:27 Then perhaps, is bargained for or is appropriate in shoreline jurisdiction. So that's kind of another issue.
18:30:34 And I think ecology in one conversation I had with them about a different jurisdiction that received a similar comment letter, kind of advised some caution and consideration
and additional thought in coordination with them.
18:30:49 About how to potentially apply such a method.
18:31:01 Yeah.
18:30:56 Thank you. Amy. So, but getting to some of the other. Concerns They they were concerned about waterward expansions of non-conforming developments and there are there were some
specific small additions allowed to kind of fill in a notch.
18:31:20 So where there's 3 sides and somebody fills in a notch. So like a kitchen expansion that doesn't go beyond the primary wall that fills in sort of a you.
18:31:33 Up to 200 square feet there were a lot of standards adjusted around that and including 80% of the buffer being enhanced.
18:31:47 And, so, but they also don't, and they also had concern about lateral expansions, as well.
18:31:56 And about the common line set back. So we can show you what the proposed changes are to the code to try to strike a balance with the great detail we took to develop the standards
that are in there and respond to these latest comments.
18:32:16 One of the changes would be to take out the common line. Buffer for non-conforming lots and that goes back to a material that's cited in the summary and that you've seen in
prior meetings where the common line which is primarily around views is not really necessary because you have buffer averaging and buffer reductions.
18:32:43 That someone would go through that would be more responsive to the site conditions and still get, you know, if views are one of the factors, it would still allow that to occur.
18:32:57 And so we're suggesting we had already proposed in your hearing draft option A, remove common line or option B amended.
18:33:04 We're suggesting to remove it we gave both options we gave the material for it so we're suggesting removing that.
18:33:12 And then the other changes would be. 2 further reference in the non-conforming development the minor expansions.
18:33:23 This is the fill the notch that we were just talking about or enclose a patio or porch.
18:33:31 That's really the. The limitations it already says. It can only be in shoreline residential or high intensity.
18:33:38 It doesn't exceed 200 square feet. So then we would. Further, clarify does not extend closer to the ordinary high watermark than the existing front wall because we're not allowing
it to go to the common line step back.
18:33:52 So that would be removed. And then, We feel like this was already covered, but it's worth stating that the proposal has to protect.
18:34:03 Repairing wetland and other critical area functions. No net loss and the least impact through mitigation sequencing.
18:34:10 So making another specific. Reference to that. That does apply. And then buffer enhancement, as we mentioned, you have to do a native planting plan.
18:34:23 For that. And then similarly for the lateral. Expansions.
18:34:31 That we also make reference to that protection of critical area functions. No net loss, mitigation sequencing.
18:34:40 In our changes here to the bottom 2 are not, substantive. These were just referencing size increases, but they didn't have any standards that went with them.
18:34:52 And so we're just putting some of the language that was down here up here. And they would still have the limitations in this section.
18:35:03 Amy, anything else you'd like? To share about this.
18:35:07 I don't think so. I think that covered it.
18:35:10 Okay.
18:35:17 So that pretty much takes care of the WDFW comments about their concerns over the small. Expansions and the.
18:35:27 Common line So we're again trying to cross reference other provisions and make it extra clear that any of those.
18:35:37 Changes to non-conforming structures would come with it. The mitigation sequencing, which is to prove that you've got the least impact.
18:35:45 Proposed.
18:35:47 Lisa in comment 14 from the Marine Resources Committee they also referenced the common line are we saying that our just remind me that our response to that is similar or it's
the same as the response to the fish and wildlife letter, was there something additional?
18:36:04 There.
18:36:05 It's basically the same and we're also giving the link to that. Material that was presented to the Planning Commission.
18:36:14 Which was that. There's buffer averaging a buffer reduction that come with the mitigation sequencing and many other things.
18:36:25 So I don't think substantially the response is different.
18:36:31 Okay, questions. So they're actually saying that they want to get rid of the common line. Averaging.
18:36:41 Yeah, I mean, paraphrasing, I guess, doesn't, or first committee letters say that exactly or something similar let's see what have we summarized And what happens when you apply
for permits like this is is when you start doing all the some of the mitigation reports that they get required, this gets really expensive.
18:37:07 It also gets really modeled down. One of the problems we had in our county over the past is is the requirements to do Casps and everything that really Really got restrictive
and were I think actually abused by the county at points common line boundary really is something that You know, an average person can kind of grasp.
18:37:33 And by, I've seen plenty of places where the common line thing makes sense and it doesn't, it doesn't make sense, and push a residence clear back.
18:37:44 Is that what you're doing with that residence? Alright.
18:37:50 If we weren't, I can pull up that memo that is linked here because I think the material shows you can get to the same place.
18:38:00 But that there's more. Standards that I think.
18:38:06 Would protect if there is if there is a critical area to protect there it it would do so. And.
18:38:15 And.
18:38:13 I understand being able to get to that, but it's. You have to. Getting to that can be horribly.
18:38:24 Cumbersome for somebody to be able to do it. And, and it's Oftentimes it's it's a just a I think to say it's an easy way to look at.
18:38:38 Doing developing close to insurance, but using that common line. Really is something that the average person can see and can understand.
18:38:47 And I don't know, I just, I mean, this, You're saying LDA, I only wanted to point out that.
18:38:56 If you look at the ecology comments. It's not that I wouldn't say they didn't understand that, but they told us that they were unclear.
18:39:04 Like, if you look at the ecology. Matrix that they gave us, they specifically pointed out the difference between reducing the process to reduce a buffer.
18:39:14 There's the modest home provision for when you have a lock that's actually not very deep.
18:39:18 And then there's this common line provision and they thought they thought it was money. And now we have the comments from Fishing Wildlife and the MRC.
18:39:26 Pointing us in a certain direction to where we were heading in a sense, do we really need this common by thing?
18:39:33 And We determine at least for the staff level that we thought that . That since the common line you still have to account for the functions of those buffers anyway.
18:39:45 So they really in the end isn't really much of a difference. That's what we concluded.
18:39:48 Clearly we can have a difference of opinion about that. I just want to explain a little bit more about how we got there.
18:39:55 These are you. Complete.
18:40:00 Yes, I can stop sharing here.
18:40:02 That I would like to, before we have our collaborations. I'd like to have the second, public comment period.
18:40:13 Yeah, Okay. So it's the opportunity of the comment. This is not, doesn't want you to come here.
18:40:24 On the today's agenda. I have no problem with listening to people's comments, but I don't want to hear the same comments that I've been hearing for the last.
18:40:38 2 years. Okay. Well, I don't think we need that restriction. Well, I think that we can ask people if they're going to make a comment that Another person not make the same redundant
comment.
18:40:53 I think you as the chair have the authority to do that. I would say that I agree with what you're saying, Richard is that people have 3Â min to comment and they can say whatever
they want as long as it's, you know, within decorum, right?
18:41:07 However, I think that your comment though, Michael, makes sense or perhaps we'll.
18:41:12 Be informative for those who are about to come in because we do have all the comments we've got hal already and all the written materials.
18:41:20 So yeah, supporting comments to be drawers at 3Â min. That's fine.
18:41:31 Yes.
18:41:34 Okay.
18:41:39 Berlin, you're in the top left of our screen. Are you ready to speak? You have your
18:41:43 Yes, I am. Okay, I won't repeat old comments. I'm gonna comment on the, your new, prospective decisions.
18:41:54 The first is that you are, Jefferson County is now going backwards. It's reversing and going further back.
18:42:03 In terms of restrictions or conditions on on GUI ducks. Even Mason County requires a standard conditional use permit for expansions of gooey ducks.
18:42:16 It is irrational to make a distinction. Between new goiduct and expansion of GUIDA.
18:42:24 Let's say we have a bay like mine. Then you have a 50 acre. Gooey duck farm.
18:42:33 If it wants to expand by 1020, 30 acres, you have one rule. But if somebody who's alternately owns, say, the tide lands next door and has a new program that is under a different
rule.
18:42:52 Now that the consequences to the environment are identical. But you've got different rules depending on whether it's called expansion or new. They're both new.
18:43:04 It's new acreage.
18:43:06 The other point I'm going to make is the problem with administrative conditional use permits. The staff only hears what it hears and gets jaw- and decides the virtue of a standard
conditional use permit is that the decision is made by a neutral decision-maker and based on the record.
18:43:31 Meaning that whatever that is, there has to be something in the record to, so to support it.
18:43:40 I'll give you an example. We had a application in our Bay. And the applicant. Failed to mention that it is adjacent to a DNR park.
18:43:54 As a consequence, DNR was never notified. The staff didn't know it because the staff wasn't told to this day the applicant has not acknowledged this Likewise, there was never
a survey done.
18:44:10 By a surveyor had it been done, it would have been evident that there was a park on one side and a park on the other side.
18:44:20 These are the kinds of documentation that a hearing examiner, I think, would require. So I would, I would urge you to go back.
18:44:30 To the standard conditional youth permit, which is like, which is. Like, like Kitsap and it's even like Mason with the exception of Mason allows a conversion.
18:44:44 In allowing conversion, you are saying you have an unknown, a conversion. In allowing conversion, you are saying you have an unknown at this point, unknown number of acres in,
Jefferson County that are oyster related.
18:44:53 You are allowing. An unknown number to be converted to GUI ducks with a permit, but you you you you don't know what that entails.
18:45:06 Yeah.
18:45:06 So I don't know how you could say there's there's no environmental impact. Thank you.
18:45:13 That you? Is there anybody else who would like to speak today? Over here. Got another hand up.
18:45:24 Okay.
18:45:24 I think Sue might have had her hand up before I did though.
18:45:29 Well, you're in our top left. Could you just go, Jan?
18:45:32 Oh, okay. I'm Jan Wold and I've lived in Jefferson County next to Hood Canal for 10 years.
18:45:40 I again want to remind everyone that 30% of all Puget Sound Tide lands are under permit for shellfish farms.
18:45:48 So what you're making decisions on here is very important. And of all the shellfish farming, gooey duck farming is by far the most destructive and it's mostly located in areas
with many threatened and endangered species.
18:46:01 I'm very concerned that you've changed the draft to not require a CUP and a hearing.
18:46:08 Especially when you say it is based on some report from 15 years ago. You have apparently ignored around 60 or more public comments.
18:46:17 To the contrary. Again, I can think of no other county project that would be more negatively impactful.
18:46:26 We're more in need of a thorough conditional use permit and a hearing. Including changing another shellfish species over to goi ducks.
18:46:43 Make Jefferson County inconsistent with neighboring Kissep and Clalom counties approved SMPs. I am very happy that you're making changes to buffers above paved roads.
18:46:54 I can't see the actual wording. That you are proposing to use for the buffers above roads.
18:47:02 The best and simplest approach is to just make all buffers the same above or below paybills as was suggested by the hood canal environmental council input.
18:47:13 There also seem to be a number of shells that are being changed to should that would seem to be watering down the regulations and that concerns me as well.
18:47:23 Thanks again for the opportunity to make comments.
18:47:27 Thank you. We've got Sue Corbett.
18:47:33 Yes. Thank you. Yes, my name is Su Corbett. I have lived on Churchill Lane in Port Ludlow for 40 years.
18:47:41 I own Tidelands and Squamish Harbor. The Thailand's are rich in marine.
18:47:48 Life such as yale grass, and dollars, and documented herring and sand land spawning area.
18:47:51 There's a gooey duck farm near my tide lens, so I have observed the negative effects.
18:47:57 Kui duck farming can have on the environment. During harvest, a hydraulic hose is used to extract the goo ducts by liquefying acres of timelines, yet goi-duck operators are
exempt from having to obtain a hydraulic Project Approval or HPA.
18:48:12 Person who plans to repair a dock. We're in stall a buoy is required to obtain an HPA but Not someone liquefying acres of tidlands.
18:48:24 Research the industry uses to claim that the harvesting does not cause harm in. Is inadequate and outdated.
18:48:34 The amount of calm caused by GUIDAC operations. May depend on a particular site. Does the GUI duck operator plan?
18:48:44 To use nets which can dislodge and become a navigation hazard. Is there a park or boat lunch near by?
18:48:52 Do people win surf nearby? Is it a herring or Sandland spawning site? The GUI DUCK operator is required to obtain a permit from the Army Corps by filling out forms.
18:49:05 Stating the conditions of a particular site. The cord very rarely. Does site visits, so they are just relying on the GUI Doc operators word.
18:49:16 The GUI Dock Farm near me is in a residential neighborhood, so it's relatively easy to observe the farm and document any violation.
18:49:27 Of regulations. So, GUIDE sites are mostly out of the public eye, so who knows what kind of harm may be occurring there.
18:49:34 So I'm urging the planning commission to make a recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners. Regarding this SMP that there is a requirement for a standard conditional
use permit.
18:49:45 Or any new GUI Doc operations on Jefferson Thailand's including expansions or conversions or other shellfish to GUIDEK.
18:49:54 Thank you for allowing me time to make a public comment.
18:49:58 Thank you for your comments. Are there any additional comments?
18:50:06 It don't see any hands raised online, Mr. Chair, but you have some others here. Sure.
18:50:14 Just to create the records and claims that the huge, so, under, aquaculture, there's a hundred 25,000, there's a hundred 25,000 acres of high-end, execution sound, and 9,000
jumps, and 9,000 jump, 40, ners, and 9,000 jumps, what do you need us, and then 5 to show
18:50:31 for check for culture. This about 7.3%. All that, area, less than 600 acres are in, agriculture.
18:50:43 In fact, I think under 400 days, but it was 680, less than half a percent of the tidings.
18:50:51 Looking, it's great that we have got a table for, to. Clarify what kind of information needs to be provided.
18:51:02 But applying for a permit, the table needs a lot of work. A lot of the provisions make no sense.
18:51:11 Existing in stable conditions i'm not sure why the county needs to know that water quality Surely that's the problem for the grower, not for the county.
18:51:21 Total variations. It's not that big a deal, but providing still wind conditions. I'm not sure.
18:51:29 Specific information on the Beats me, why the company needs to know that. These are just additional, Barry is put in the way, particularly, for.
18:51:48 Small growers, I'm sure. It's had a show which could cope with these but.
18:51:57 The. Scientific or technical reasons to ask for new conditions. Hi, and not heard any scientific or technical reasons why we need these new conditions.
18:52:14 Some of the things that they ask for, they're coming under SIPA and Java and Seger is required for a current under SIPA and Java and SIPPA and JAVA and SCUP.
18:52:29 So some of them can get anyway. And, as for other parents. So this table, and I which I can't do in 3Â min but like having to submit and Thank you.
18:52:47 Thank you.
18:52:54 Nice. Okay. No. You see, Josh, No, no, Okay, so now we're.
18:53:13 Good. This is a good time to talk about what the plan is for this process. What would be ideal would be if we've been, you know, what we heard.
18:53:29 And what we think about the draft. If we have, if we, get, bloated and say it's good to go, we can say that, yeah, a couple of these areas perhaps.
18:53:42 They can be changed. And that will be done before, our next meeting. Or we might find the video is horrible and then we have to have 2 different graphs.
18:53:56 I suppose those are the right choices. Yes. My option would be a motion to approve and then have someone offer the minutes.
18:54:11 How are you offering? I'm sure I'm gonna wait through this. As intended to be written.
18:54:22 Is that good because it's not quite the September twentieth public hearing draft. As modified through the staff report and attachment A to today's meeting.
18:54:35 Correct. Yeah, Okay. So, and now we're as open discussion.
18:54:51 Yes.
18:54:53 I don't know if you guys can hear me.
18:54:56 Yes.
18:55:00 I'd like to make a motion to amend the the draft in response, the the staff report draft.
18:55:12 As a named in the motion. To change the use table. I'm actually I'm gonna start my motion in a different place.
18:55:25 I'm just gonna say I'm gonna make a comment first. I'm gonna say, I agree.
18:55:29 That any conversions or expansions to my mind are still new. Doing. Production areas.
18:55:42 So I agree with standardizing the type of UP process across the board. To standards. Because I, I also don't see a difference.
18:55:55 So I would like to make a motion to amend the main motion for that effect.
18:56:00 Yeah, I think we're just got the, we're delivering now about the draft you just read and you're delivering now about the draft you just read and you express your view and that'll
be part of the discussion.
18:56:11 And in the end, we will, we will not vote today on this. We will go to the next meeting.
18:56:16 Oh.
18:56:18 So we met in both in the room and we made a booking to approve the second day. But that was just to get discussion opened.
18:56:27 I see. So we'll. You know, that's a good one.
18:56:33 I hear it here, cause I didn't I really wanted to wait until we and our deliberations.
18:56:40 So could you withdraw the motion? But if I could just interject for a moment.
18:56:45 So the final vote of the planning commission. Is expected to be at a future meeting when the entire document is prepared.
18:56:56 To your recommendation based on these subject areas, right? So in other words, I'm trying to listen to what your recommendation is.
18:57:05 Various topics and then once once we get that then the consultants and I can work on the draft to prepare something that you can read through in preparation for the next meeting
sort of the final confirmation.
18:57:19 But I was thinking, Mr. Chair, that you know motions on like a motion like like maths would be affected will be an effective way for me to understand where the planning commission
is heading for the recommendation so that we can actually do that work.
18:57:34 And I'm, you know, I'm not a Robert Wills, or expert, but I can see where Cynthia is going.
18:57:38 She's making an amendment. She's she's making a motion to amend massive motion. I think that's also fair game.
18:57:44 I don't hear a second yet or what have you, but if that is that if that's successful, then the main motion is amended by her motion and so forth.
18:57:51 But I understand what you're saying. We're essentially just talking this through and trying to get So I understand what the planning commission as a body, individual members
find out different opinions, but what the planet Christian thinks about that particular issue.
18:58:03 What should the youth table say for? For the process to get to condition use permits for various types of fluid.
18:58:11 I need to know that in order to get the get the document prepared for your next action at the next meeting.
18:58:16 Document prepared for your next action at the next meeting. Yes. I'm not sure what I want to do.
18:58:25 Yeah, I think it might be cleaner to withdraw the original. And had this all discussion. Hmm, I'm just, Cool.
18:58:35 I agree.
18:58:38 So, well, they'd be cleaner to decide everything and then they can most instead of pulling out pieces.
18:58:45 That was a, that was my original thought. How I plan to do this. Yeah, maybe I misunderstood by, learned of the thoughts that we would happen to, Here or well, I guess I really
understand the issue here because we don't have basic census.
18:59:06 We don't have to. Where we are. And then come in both the next time.
18:59:13 No, that won't work either, cause we, get, used to know. Well, we won't change.
18:59:23 We'll be listening to what we're asking. I guess I can rewind and say what What you and I talked about was maybe we wouldn't have to have a vote on every single issue because
some issues there would be consensus.
18:59:34 Like save for example, I don't just as an example. The road buffer issue. If you think that the draft from from September twentieth You're happy with that.
18:59:45 It can be the chair could ask for consensus and then it's obvious that there is if nobody objects or says I'd like it to be different.
18:59:53 There are some issues however that there may be differences of opinion. And one of those could be the use table.
18:59:58 So. In some ways I need to know what the commission decides on that question so that we can prepare a draft that reflects that.
19:00:11 The reason why I'm so we can vote on pieces because Some of us support things, some concerns.
19:00:20 We can show a split vote and it has. Just, but it gives some. Sense of taking the temperature.
19:00:32 Not just whether they're past their bill, but looking at the account. How about, and send you over a new.
19:00:41 That way and entering each of the topic of the whole book on each topic is the significant.
19:00:49 Mute. Next time in. What, what do we need for next time? To prove.
19:01:04 The SNP revision and to complete the findings. So if I, in other words, Mike.
19:01:14 Staff and the consultants responded to the comments that we've heard so far and additional research. And we suggested some revisions to the September twentieth.
19:01:23 Hearing draft. And we've got over those. But in order to prepare a document that's got complete Charlotte Master Program document that revises our current program.
19:01:37 That reflects the planning. Commission's recommendation. We're gonna need time to do that. So we were thinking we were hoping that we can get through all of sort of the issues
and maybe there's an issue that's even not even reflecting on the table that someone wants to bring up.
19:01:51 That's it even possible. But at least the issues that we know are the things that people have wanted to talk about so far.
19:01:56 And we can work through those and whether there may be consensus on some of those. Some of those might have different opinions and so my vote would be helpful in order to.
19:02:04 For staff to understand the planning commission recommendation on that particular topic is therefore will what if we're able to finish that discussion tonight.
19:02:13 Then, by late next week, you'll get the planning commission agenda for November first and I'll have the full SNP.
19:02:22 It'll have your letter of recommendation with some findings in it. And then that action on November first will basically just be, yeah, that reflects what we talked about. We're
good to go.
19:02:30 Please send it to the commissioners. If we don't get to that tonight, then we reserve the possibility of a special meeting next week to continue this discussion.
19:02:39 The reason I'm asking that is it sounds to me like. That is pretty much. A adopted in his mind that you're satisfied with the way the new drafts are done.
19:02:59 Let me, let me, before, before, previous, we, before, a couple years ago, on our topic, and it's, it's administratively easier sometimes to make a motion, easier sometimes to
make a motion either to approve it or not.
19:03:10 And it's administratively easier sometimes to make a motion either to approve or not approve it just to get discussion.
19:03:11 And so, Matt, I don't think you can ask me. Means anything about whether you like it or not.
19:03:17 Well, it's hard enough to make that and I thought we were a little bit quicker than we are. Yeah.
19:03:23 And I might have used deliberation and having chaired this organization before deliberation is discussion. Once we make our recommendations for amendments, consider the elements
that were already provided to us the same name.
19:03:36 After we've had our discussion, then we can go ahead. Oh, I have no probability on each one.
19:03:43 And I can't speak for you too, but I can speak for myself. And what I've heard is that we're pretty satisfied with how the Oh, documents put together except there's a lot of
challenge under the GUI duct process.
19:03:57 And as an example, I do agree with the comment that was made tonight that if the county in this document is gonna require specific things for an application and it is based
upon science we should have the best available science for requirements.
19:04:15 Why are we going to be doing it this way? Not just to put something arbitrary in there because some other county is doing it or it sounded good that some person influence the
group in that sense.
19:04:26 So I think best bias And this document, for 2,000 and mine, talks about that. You know, I think that's permanent in that.
19:04:35 So am I incorrect and thinking that we are pretty much going to. Earthly consider adopting everything that you've heard, but the challenge is the viewing duck and how can you
come to a consensus where all these folks that have been naking comments for months in the past as well as tonight that we can assure that they have some kind of influence on this more
so than that had in the past.
19:05:02 That's what I'm looking. So, Matt, would you say you're willing to withdraw your motion?
19:05:13 I'm definitely going to work on a team if we if we think it and do that, think it's the most efficient way to look forward.
19:05:17 But I feel like we're so close. Sounds here. I'd like if you look through with, instead of vending yours.
19:05:27 Alright, and that's better. It is me. Okay, So Cynthia, would you care to make a motion then as you started to before?
19:05:43 Yeah, I would be having to. I would like to. Make a motion to amend the youth table with regards to LUDA expansion and conversion.
19:05:59 To make it consistently at standard, UP process across the board. For the reason.
19:06:10 There are second for the motion.
19:06:19 The second, most, we're lacking the same.
19:06:25 So.
19:06:30 So, what I guess, and then, oh, sorry, no, it, so where we go from here then, we're.
19:06:34 We wanna discuss different pieces of this. But I don't think we don't have to accept it the document as it is.
19:06:43 To discuss it as far as some of the different specifics that are doing. Well, we, I like to see I provide.
19:06:54 There's something that he can put his, If we have a concern about section, either in, in the awkward culture.
19:07:04 Or other areas. Well, what's, what if we make a, through the document and spirit with upcoming changes to to some of it.
19:07:25 You have to take what we need to do is we didn't give Josh if we if we don't think it's a great document as is.
19:07:31 We need to tell Josh why we don't think it's a great document as is. Okay.
19:07:38 Okay.
19:07:46 Bye.
19:07:38 But, yeah, You'll be, John, Is just gonna come in here. Well, okay.
19:07:50 Go ahead.
19:07:52 My suggestion would be we kind of jumped into process without even giving everyone a chance. Even quickly to say how they felt about it and that might be useful.
19:08:04 Okay.
19:08:03 So just gives every planning commissioner. A couple of minutes to comment on how they feel like we are relative to the staff documents.
19:08:14 Good idea. Yeah.
19:08:23 Do you mind giving me a minute? I'm driving and I'm actually gonna be to you guys pretty soon.
19:08:28 So if you don't mind starting elsewhere, I can comment later.
19:08:32 Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I personally, I think everything you put together, Josh, with community input has been pretty I'm a little goosey on the conditional use permit.
19:08:53 I come from a mentality that I don't really like it. Yeah.
19:09:00 A public employee. And I had this conversation with, that one of these meetings. I don't.
19:09:08 Feel comfortable having. Your department making a decision on whether somebody can or can't. Sort of, I do like the idea of a conditional use permit in the sense that.
19:09:25 We can use an administrative person with an outside viewpoint. That has the experience view, effectively put that in place.
19:09:33 So that's the concern that I have. Having said that with everything that you put together.
19:09:40 I have I'm not gonna appreciate one way or the other. I have no party in that sense.
19:09:48 We'd better see the conditional use to that requirements for anything across the board. Secondly, is I am.
19:09:53 I go background in science and it's extremely important today that But this gentleman here said, you have requirements in the code.
19:10:06 Or those kinds of things and it's based on science that's fine but if it's arbitrary then it's not fine with me so I would like to see that polished up.
19:10:18 That's. Other than that, I think you guys have done a spectacular job as well as people from previous.
19:10:27 Community wide committee gave input to this. It's tough that we've had to go through like a 4, 5 year process on this because of COVID.
19:10:36 But I think we're getting somewhere substantial now. So that's my I think, and, and, and, and, then, you, we read in and building, and stuff, to talk about best science available.
19:10:49 So we need to get that.
19:10:55 Good. I'll try to be great because I've already talked so. I'm surprised it said you as much didn't get a second.
19:11:04 I was I was considering it. You know, it's so good to consider that stuff.
19:11:08 I mean, I do. You just echo as but I also feel like, the opportunity for the public to be involved is still there.
19:11:21 And sort of some sort of as long as the public is involved and able to have an, permit process for it.
19:11:32 Expange. So, And I'm definitely like torn about all that. It's a difficult issue.
19:11:43 I support the buffers by the rows change. I support the common line change. It's kinda, issues and hopefully come down.
19:11:55 Broader, so I hope that helps. I'm really impressed with the operational comments. I mean, I really try to think about a lot myself.
19:12:03 We're seeing this. And if. These ideas weren't in the draft, they're kind of recommended a lot.
19:12:11 Great.
19:12:16 Yeah, I'm gonna echo a little bit along with where Mike's going to this and I think oftentimes we Look at these things and we go we see something and we think well gosh that
must be bad for the environment but unless science tells us one way or another that it is or it isn't.
19:12:35 If we can't necessarily, with just a knee-jerk reaction, you see some community or cloudy water.
19:12:43 Somebody might, oh gosh, that's bad. But then yet nature actually does that through storms also and produces the same exact kind of thing.
19:12:50 Not necessarily in the amount that gets happened that happens with with, which I have personally, so I have no I'm gonna, that I do not support the buffer on the opposite side
of the road because I think oftentimes road becomes a.
19:13:12 Distinct barrier between what happens on the waterside and what happens on the upside. I mean, there's exceptions to that.
19:13:20 Depending on what water flow is doing and everything else, I understand that. But. But I think that oftentimes there's 65 foot wide asphalt road completely changes the dynamics
of what happens on one side and what happens to the other.
19:13:32 So I don't necessarily, I don't like the idea that we are we're dropping the common line buffer or the common line.
19:13:45 Boundary. Because I think that's been that common line has been an easy thing for people to see.
19:13:58 I think that the common line is something that we if we strive in the same that is an absolute maximum, there could still be other environmental restrictions to keep you from
going out to that common line.
19:14:10 If the shoreline comes in between the like the idea of building all that into it. But I also like the idea of being able to say, you know, these houses are here.
19:14:22 There's nothing changes to the shore, shoreline. Or buildings, whatever it is. That we can look to that as a maximum and unless some other environmental thing changes that shouldn't
allow that.
19:14:38 I like the idea. Revisions still written in there.
19:14:46 I'm torn on the conditional use permit process. Again, I think science needs to be a big part of whether a condition use permit is required on the expansion versus existing
use.
19:15:02 That's kinda
19:15:08 Yeah. I need to think about it a little more. I grew up on a Good. Beach and remember when GUIDE farming first started and how it completely destroyed the beach ecosystem.
19:15:24 And I just wanna. Proceed carefully on on that issue and I'd like to talk to a few more science.
19:15:37 Marine science people and, see, you know, what way we should go. I mean, it was, it's very destructive to the beach.
19:15:49 So that's. My thought.
19:15:05 Okay. Exactly, Chris. You wanna wait if you get here? Is that what your plan is?
19:16:00 I can speak now, I think, if that's okay. I'm, I am also, but not quite.
19:16:07 I Okay, so my issue with. The difference between new Heybridge, new agriculture.
19:16:21 And, expansion is that if I and having let's use 25 acres. I don't know what numbers what scale to use but let's say it's 25 acres let's say I want to add 25 acres to my current.
19:16:37 100 acres. And I, I don't have to go through as rigorous process or.
19:16:47 According to the use table it says that an administrator gets to decide whether it's a standard Do you be or it's a administrative CUP where they just get to, you know, go through
their own work.
19:17:03 Less public process, which I understand people get just, still comment on, but I guess I what I'm getting at is I don't see the difference between adding 25 acre to an existing
farm as opposed to creating a new farm on a new 25 acres.
19:17:26 It's still 25 acres. That wasn't in production before. And now it's going to be in GUIDE production.
19:17:37 And I think we need to give everyone an opportunity to understand the local site and local concerns and that to me is a standard UP process and the same with conversion.
19:17:47 I think giving everyone an opportunity. To go through a full process to look at what might be.
19:18:00 At risk. That may not be obvious. Site by site. To me is important.
19:18:08 And that'd be a public process. But isn't decided by some administrator either whether the administrator is, together whether the project is the conversion or the addition is
approved or whether the administrator decides.
19:18:26 But it is an administrative only process as opposed to a standard process. I just think it should be a full, CUP, because I don't understand that.
19:18:36 I don't Thank you. I live it's conversion or addition on new they all just use the same process.
19:18:49 I actually, I'm very conflicted about the buffer issue because I think there are situations where taking into consideration the pull buffer even if a road goes through it would
be important.
19:19:02 And, My mind, I'm sort of torn between an absolute rule that you should always include the entire buffer even if a road goes for it.
19:19:14 Of course we have a great example in Shine or whether as proposed. We would make that again an administrative decision what whether that's it should be included or the full
buffer area should be.
19:19:34 Satisfied and included and considered or not in a situation where there's a road middle I'm really drawn about that.
19:19:43 I do not think, that we should absolutely ever consider the, summer area.
19:19:53 On me. Inside of a road. If a road goes through the buffer, I, I think that, there are too many variables.
19:20:06 Feel like there was something else, but I think I'll stop for now.
19:20:09 Okay. So somebody so I'm above a shellfish operation. I'm gonna expand to on prop.
19:20:30 Hmm.
19:20:22 5 acres next door to me. Currently when I get into apply for a. What kind of documentation for marine biologist or whatever black provided that says that I'm not gonna buy any
partner.
19:20:36 I know nothing about these kind of. So what is it what does an applicant have to provide? To satisfy Jefferson County that they're not really hard to.
19:20:51 The main tool for that. Is the state environmental policy act checklist, and then the JARPA that Gordon mentioned, that's a joint aquatic resources permit application.
19:21:04 We accept the joint aquatic resources permit application. We accept the JARPA as well because it's intended for multiple agencies to use as a, as well because it's intended
for multiple agencies to use as a as well because it's intended for multiple agencies to use as a single permit application form when you're dealing with aquatic resources.
19:21:14 So the combination of the questions that are asked in the JARPA, the questions are asked and to see the checklist.
19:21:19 Sometimes there's additional information to support like if you're in a geologically hazardous area.
19:21:29 Hello.
19:21:24 You might need a special report, a landslide, report from a geotechnical engineer to say, is it gonna be safe to build there? Those kinds of things.
19:21:32 So I guess it's always site specific and application specific. Those are the basic. Mechanisms I did ask just for fun of that.
19:21:39 I'm gonna turn the lights up just for a minute here so you can see what I pulled up.
19:21:42 This is already in the code. It's not in the Shoreline Master Program. This is what the administrator looks at when deciding with when you have a CD.
19:21:52 Did you find? Yeah, sorry. Got it here. To zoom in.
19:21:59 Okay, review process. Yeah, so keep go scrolling that a little bit there, required findings.
19:22:06 The administrator looks at a case and in this list of things, especially a little bit below. Design, configuration, potential impacts.
19:22:09 So I'm saying that there's a set of criteria that this happens all the time.
19:22:14 This isn't unusual. It's just that we're now we're talking about GUI duck and we're talking about the difference between a new, a brand new area, a new operation versus either
an existing aquaculture operation that is a different species or shellfish that's gonna wants to convert or whether you're expanding existing operation.
19:22:34 So just want to clarify that just is something that we do it happens. They're still both conditional use permit processes.
19:22:40 Still both included public comment and they're still ultimately the decision of another body. That is the Department of Ecology.
19:22:48 So just want to clarify about that. Okay, I think we go back to the Zoom. Okay, so, so does the partner.
19:22:56 Actually actively watch. And, but this, do, he actively watch selfish operations closely and site and find shellfish operators if they're not in compliance with what they originally
done or is that a rarity?
19:23:17 So I would say, which is from a permanent perspective, the shorelines and environmental assistance programs, C program.
19:23:25 They received the permit package from the local government. They look over the what's there, whether it's a hearing exam decision or the local government's cod administrator
decision.
19:23:35 And then they say, are we gonna put extra conditions on there? Are we going to deny it or approve it?
19:23:39 And that's what they do. In terms of compliance and other cases. I mean, I think it, I think it totally depends again.
19:23:47 If it's a certain kind of operation, it's big enough to have like a national pollutant discharge elimination systems permit at npds that's an entire water quality permit comes
from federal clean water requirements come student department of ecology then there would be a lot of involvement there if it's a smaller operation then thing is more based on let's
complaint driven or information driven like if there's a evidence of
19:24:08 a water quality problem that there's an enforcement Apology that would be involved the county would probably be involved in that case too.
19:24:14 So again, it's dependent on those situations, cases. Okay, thank you. Yeah, a day to day basis.
19:24:24 It is up to County to. Monitor that shellfish business. Is that correct? I would say that It's up to the permit recipient to comply.
19:24:40 With permit requirements. That would not just be for our permit, but for any other permit. Army core permit or some other permit from another agency.
19:24:50 So that said, If the county discovers or comes to find out or observes that an applicant of a permanent recipient of a permit is not following those conditions, then we do have
Title 19, which is our co-compliance title, and we can start an action.
19:25:06 There could be daily finds, there could be other consequences. We always try to go for voluntary compliance, of course.
19:25:12 So that's how it works. I will also say that, you know, we are a department of about 20 people.
19:25:18 We have one co compliance person, you know, so I guess there's a certain realism here in terms of the amount of things that are happening around the county.
19:25:25 All the way out in the West End. Down to South County. So it's virtually possible for us to be on a day-to-day basis to be involved in the Docker Bulture operation.
19:25:34 I've often reached out to shellfish operators or I've done so in the past.
19:25:38 In various capacities to to get information, you know, if there's, if there's a complaint that comes in, say, you know, what's here?
19:25:48 We've received this complaint, show us the documentation or tell us your perspective about how you are. Complying with those conditions.
19:25:53 And so there's a back and forth. There might be site visits involved. But again, we only are we do co compliance on a priority basis and that's in our the most important things
down to the things that aren't quite as important, but still important, but not quite as important as the top things.
19:26:07 And it's usually around life safety if someone, can someone be heard? Is there significant environmental damage at hand and and then down down through that priority tiers system?
19:26:19 That I think there's a lot of apprehension from. People have been testifying. In that sense is that what they see as or something that's not appropriate, it's not necessarily
as critical to the work in that sense because of prioritization of it.
19:26:43 So I just thought it'd be nice to get that. I think it's safe to say that.
19:26:52 Not every person who files a complaint or that believes that there's an infraction next door to them.
19:26:58 Is going to. Be satisfied with the county's response to that because that'd be virtually impossible because it's impossible for us to be all places at all times and there's
plenty of people in the county that actually like us not to be in office is an alternative.
19:27:14 It's a balance and it's just like a comprehensive plan. The things that the types of things that we talk about.
19:27:17 We're balancing where We're doing the best we can and we're balancing based on our needs.
19:27:22 But that said though, if there's a violation of the permit and it's a blatant thing and There will be contact and much of the time there's cooperation.
19:27:29 Oh, thank you for putting that out. We'll fix it. To contact. Yes, there is a process.
19:27:43 So is it better in along that line? Is it better in along that line? Is it better that, is along that line?
19:27:47 Is it better that the system may contact the, the, the system, contacts, the, or stay in Washington, like, IT, IT, totally depends.
19:27:57 And the part of the has their own complaint. It totally depends. And the part of the company has their own complaint driven system and for reporting potential violations and
you can read about the paper. It totally depends.
19:28:06 And the department has their own complaint driven system and for reporting potential violations and you can read about the paper when there's their own complaint driven system
and for reporting potential violations and you can read about the paper when it has their own complaint driven system and for reporting potential violations and you can read about in
the paper when there's like you know big spill in a river. From.
19:28:13 It doesn't So.
19:28:16 Thank you. It was news. And my view is that it is a very important enterprise. Hey, Jefferson County and the state of Washington.
19:28:32 And I don't, I think we have to be careful not to put barriers. Into the success and the industry.
19:28:41 It's an employer, it's a taxpayer. So I, that said, CUPD is seems to be fine.
19:28:49 I think the, they just, the expression, the first day to bump it up to a, So the mechanism was there.
19:28:59 As far as the fourth minute, that That's that's not my job My job is to find a fair, ordinances for, industry to operate.
19:29:11 And we have most people most most most participants are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by ballooning their beach and violating laws.
19:29:23 And There are always some bad actors. And I don't know how to police them. I think there are there are mechanisms for policing them.
19:29:32 I'm not sure he does the water, but they're federal state agencies. So that's not my business.
19:29:38 So I like the. The responses that we made. You know, I do that one time.
19:29:49 And I thought that Mike mentioned table 1825 or 40, which is the. So the application requirements.
19:29:56 But I'll call the title. And I would like to see. That, make sure that, each of the requirements.
19:30:08 And that's something pretty straightforward, I think. That was, 1825, 4, 40.
19:30:19 Yes. That was, 1825, 4, 40. Yes. But, and, and, the, number, and, letter, associated, that, all, this, that, whole, section, it, does, the, table, so, so, it's in attachment
A and at least say you're still, could you pull up a Tasman A and share that?
19:30:32 Again, this is not in the current program. It's a table that We recommend. Inserting into the master program following recommendations of at least the Jamestown school on private
as well as other commenters.
19:30:45 And. You know. I guess there's been some question about particular elements. I don't know which ones or what have you, but.
19:30:53 Are you seeing this Josh? Okay.
19:30:53 There they are. Yes, And also just to clarify, we change some of the language around permit requirements, first of all to give the 3 different kinds here of aquaculture, right?
19:31:06 Or not V 3, but 3 different kinds of agriculture. And also stated that if it's demonstrably not applicable, then it doesn't have to be submitted.
19:31:17 It is already stated in our code by the way that the administrator may require additional information. So there's always that.
19:31:24 We don't need all the all the things in the call. Maybe we should, we do those. That is your prerogatives.
19:31:30 You know, that is your prerogatives. You recommend whatever you want. I just wanted to be clear that, you know, applicants also appreciate when they know exactly what they're
supposed to provide and this table goes into some detail.
19:31:38 And to us, these things are applicable. They're probably part of the seat, but generally part of the SEPA checklist for part of other information or it's all I heard a comment
someone said that you know, the comedy, missed information or didn't have information, we're making the permit decision.
19:31:56 So, so the information that the response to that was yeah that's true and so it's important to get as much information as possible.
19:32:01 Now, maybe it's maybe there's particular elements here, but you can go through this list if you like.
19:32:05 I like the table. We you said something, he said these are human elements, if there is some justification that we can.
19:32:13 You see the check this is very general, Richard. This is specific to our phone. How are those selected?
19:32:21 Because I think it was wonderful. I had a great idea. I just wanna make sure that, that we, that all the requirements on the left.
19:32:32 Have some, that they came from somewhere beside the sky. We didn't make them up, I don't think.
19:32:40 This is where I'm at a I actually gonna refer to Lisa and Amy only in the sense that you know, this discussion started long before I rejoined the department.
19:32:49 So I, I don't get an answer now. Okay. Just something that I was, wanted to take a look at.
19:32:54 And you came back and the next news said they're all justified. Fine. No problem. Just, yeah, I'd be happy to look at those and put down a little comment and spread it to you
guys.
19:33:11 I'll go through that. Yes, but you can buy the next meeting, or have to get something back.
19:33:22 I'm thinking this this is if you want if you want to dive into this table and go line by line on application requirements we're looking at a special meeting next week or we're
just gonna defer this until after we do the compound cycle.
19:33:34 Because we're not gonna do I don't think we're be able to do both things at a November first meeting or where I feel to respond.
19:33:39 You know, I mean, so if you wanted to, I think we should do the October 20 fifth meeting and this will be the subject.
19:33:48 Where where the Where did that come from? What? I'm playing for literal grip. What was that?
19:34:01 Is that something you read that said this should be included?
19:34:02 I'm gonna ask Amy to comment, but I think it was a combination of things with that we're already in your code, the whack rules and.
19:34:12 And some of the examples. So, Amy, do you wanna? Speak to this.
19:34:16 Yeah. Some of these things were, at least to said, already in the Jefferson County code and then especially kind of.
19:34:27 Broad categories of things like baseline ecological survey, but there wasn't a lot of definition as well.
19:34:32 What is a baseline ecological survey? And so based on Probably a couple of years ago now. Planning commission or public comments.
19:34:42 I can't recall exactly where it came from, but, we were directed to look at Kitsap counties surely master program they had a very specific.
19:34:50 Explicit list of application requirements and those were then incorporated. That was approved by ecology, so it's gone through.
19:35:04 That level of review. But I didn't do like a line by line thoughtful is the scientifically justified kind of a thought about each one just looking at the list though.
19:35:19 I could see that in depending on where the project is located, any one of these things might be relevant for being able to demonstrate that your particular aquaculture operation
will have certain kinds or degrees of of potential effect on on the environment.
19:35:41 So I imagine it would be very site-specific. Aquaculture type specific and as far as how the list was assigned to the different aquaculture categories that came from the tribes
comment letter, which, I presume they put some thought into what things they thought were appropriate and relevant for each of these types of aquaculture.
19:36:07 But. We could follow up with.
19:36:07 Thank you. I've heard literal mentioned, which I could, I can make an argument in my mind why that'd be an important thing for to know for the GUI duck operator by the way,
you know, what's the what's the prevailing sentiment transport in this particular area?
19:36:21 However, it's not even checks there, so I don't think we need to talk about that very much.
19:36:24 Why? No. Just from a conceptual point of view, like. It could make it look different if.
19:36:34 The first category was So, selfish other than doing that. And then doing that. I mean, that's, because you have.
19:36:43 You know, a lot of that stuff is kind of fish and that's what part of what makes it confusing.
19:36:49 And so either we have all other interest section, we just kind of love it in there. It's not particularly popular.
19:36:56 From that category and it shouldn't be listed first probably that maybe that's a source of confusion.
19:37:02 You're sorry? Just a comment on that. Just remember how we got here, which is that we got a list of requirements and the comment was they're too much together they should be
broken out into the different aquaculture groups out so we did it the text And then we heard, you know, it'd be better to do in a table.
19:37:22 So now we did a table. So, you know, I think the calls could be helpful in like from, I don't know, it's, it's a, we could certainly shift the call.
19:37:33 I don't know if there's a problem with the table though because it's brand new.
19:37:34 So I don't know that we need to solve. Problem that we don't have. The comment was if I could pair a phase I think Mike you're you're the one who brought it up in terms of but
what we heard was that some of the things aren't applicable or that they don't have a scientific basis.
19:37:50 Is what the comment was. And again, if they're not applicable, I think that it's our solved by the language.
19:37:55 Hmm. I think the comment was let's make sure they have a scientific basis. How do you feel like Amy's response?
19:38:05 I thought that was, oh, yeah, it wasn't explained that way.
19:38:14 I feel more comfortable with that response. Okay.
19:38:24 We've actually made some progress here. So.
19:38:38 What? Because What I'm hearing from Josh is that we don't. Get this done next week.
19:38:48 We're gonna put it off again. If I could just clarify, thank you for the opportunity. So.
19:38:53 When I said when I said that it was based on what Mike said about I want to dig in, I'd like to dig into this table and actually start to investigate a scientific basis for
each and every element.
19:39:04 Well, that's gonna take that would make an extra meeting because we can't prepare a master program for your vote to approve that still has these open-ended questions.
19:39:14 So really, I, I guess I would just say that it depends on how far you get tonight. If they're still questions to discuss, then yes, absolutely a special meeting.
19:39:23 And if, but if you're able to work through these issues that have been identified in your opening statements essentially and if necessary vote on some of these aspects and get
to a place where this is the planning commission recommendation, then we can take the 2 weeks to prepare the document and for your final vote on November first.
19:39:38 But really it is the price. You're we've set it up so you You can have a special meeting next week if you like.
19:39:44 I missed that we can vote on it in early November. I understood the 2 options were we used to work next week or we put it off with the laughter that .
19:39:55 Yeah, and I guess I guess what I meant was, that's about the case. Okay.
19:40:03 That is, right now we're all over but I think we're What I'd like to be able to tell Josh is that we pretty much hit everything that we wanted to see change.
19:40:14 And that if, VCD and, and BERK consulting can put this together, we have something we can support.
19:40:22 Do you feel clear about what we want change? No. What do you watch? I've written down.
19:40:37 I've written down with what some of the concerns were. I know where I think each commissioner stands, but.
19:40:40 So one change. And this is, I'm glad you brought it up. Was Eldi's comments about, the buffers.
19:40:46 And a lot. Yeah, and what it says to the rest of the commissioners that we want to, my caller.
19:41:01 I've heard about about that basically in the gut. That was absolutely, I mean, I was trying to lead the way to vote on that.
19:41:05 That's why I mean, my mother. Oh, you may have bought a, Sure. Well, when we in the past, we have any specific motions.
19:41:18 Specific point. Scott motion. Yeah. You make 2 motion one for the buffers, one for the, yeah, I make a motion to keep the common line but common line boundary in place.
19:41:40 With exceptions to environmental regulations that would prevent it from being, something being developed into that space. That's a good motion.
19:41:52 Okay. Is there a second motion?
19:41:56 Sorry. My second. Is there any discussion?
19:42:05 Let's see. Chris, you don't like it. Can I? I was thinking about.
19:42:17 My discussion would just be. This is one of those situations that I feel profoundly. Not qualified to weigh in on like I'm listening to LD in big big year because he's in business
and I don't have I don't have my own meaning about it and I don't really have.
19:42:37 The experience to, I mean, staff is saying. But, so, that's the choice.
19:42:48 But this is a discussion, isn't it? No work would be right. But you're disgusting that you didn't have to need the call right and I'll offer you a option.
19:42:58 I always realized that I, I just wanted to say that my discussion is staff is saying that it's covered in a different way.
19:43:18 Discussion. I just wanted to say that, my, my discussion is staff is saying that it's covered in a different way.
19:43:23 Do you want to? And it just. I mean, I've seen too many places where it makes more sense to use it online.
19:44:11 Have the ability to do the common line again with with exceptions. To other than, you know, having the next guy or you think, what's that key George?
19:44:24 We've got a house that's here and it has it's good that you're near the bird.
19:44:26 And maybe you've been there for 20 years and now if you look at the new setbacks without a common line address but it might pull this house.
19:44:45 WAY back. But I guess what I'm confused by is I was getting the impression from staff that we could get there a different way.
19:44:48 This possibility that they could be the same line, but we're just using that they felt like it was stupid, a word.
19:44:57 And I'm like, I, for some reason I don't see it that way. So that's all.
19:45:02 Any other discussion?
19:45:05 Okay. I can see Chris, so you'll have to tell me where these, that all in favor, maybe Chris, say yes or no.
19:45:14 Or a thing.
19:45:24 Abstain.
19:45:18 Chris, You like like we lost Christine. Okay. And, all in favor, raise your hand here.
19:45:33 Nice 1. 2, 3. They're Mike, yes. And Cindy is a yes.
19:45:46 It was the third one. Yeah, there's some.
19:45:58 Case we have 2 of those. And what extension. Which is not about So, Okay. Okay.
19:46:17 Hmm.
19:46:15 . For a second This, the, the, extending the buffer to the opposite side of the room, correct?
19:46:28 No, it's not the staff organization. Yeah, Lisa, can we pull up the?
19:46:45 Okay.
19:46:34 September twentieth version, so I think that's where the language is. I pick it.
19:46:51 Oh.
19:46:51 It is considered about about unless it's determined to be. Very separate from.
19:47:02 Okay. Like it, like if it's. I don't know, what's the term?
19:47:09 This is a precise term for being very separate. So yeah, like there's really, so I'll summarize while we're looking for that idea.
19:47:17 It might be tricky to find it, but it's it's in the September 20 eighth version.
19:47:22 Might be tricky to find it but it's the it's in the September twentieth version so again we current language said.
19:47:25 The buffer only goes to the road. A comment was a couple of comments where we should do what Mason says, which says that no, it's the full buffer irrespective of the road and
we chose the middle ground, which is that essentially it's either by the administrators prerogative or a special report if required.
19:47:44 To determine whether that part of the buffer that's landward of the road is has ecological function and essentially acts the same.
19:47:55 Can't remember the language. They put it here. Yes, case specific. So there's this.
19:48:14 Lisa, functionally isolated that should take you right to it.
19:48:19 I'm actually actually. And, 65 foot road doesn't functionally isolate. They're not all 65, all right?
19:48:33 Well, no, no, no, no, that's something something's walk some, yeah, ride, things run, you know, I mean, there's all kinds of things that use buffers.
19:48:40 Thanks for wondering. Okay, there it is. And maybe you can, when a buffer extends, it may be considered functionally isolated.
19:48:47 Such that provides insignificant. Badge, will function. Any given situation, may make that determination or require a special report to assess whether the buffer on the outside
of the road or require a special report to assess whether the buffer on the outside of the road or surface function.
19:49:00 If report concludes or the commissioner agrees. Then the roader is blah, blah, blah.
19:49:06 So yeah, you just, this just describes. Essentially it's going to be a case specific situation.
19:49:11 So we basically took them, we recommend you take in the middle ground. Nice. Neither defaulting to the full buffer nor.
19:49:18 Saying automatically that the road will separate, but we're going to take a look at it because this in my experience anyway, looking at permanent applications.
19:49:26 There's always something, there's always a case and sometimes it requires judgment. We use it all the time.
19:49:32 So that's really our recommendation. You know, blood or jetty. I mean, there's different things that I, big road, you know, with really destructing road like.
19:49:42 It's better than others. So, still want to make a motion. I think it's pretty funny personally.
19:49:55 Well, as long as it's an administrative option to be able to look at it. Look at my mills, but I got covers the 2 non-esque not up culture, that was where they got. Yeah.
19:50:09 So, and the discussion on off the culture in the end, I think we pretty much thought it was okay.
19:50:12 We were not, it wasn't perfect. But we could live with it. I guess something wrong with, did we tell something to drop and you need to change?
19:50:23 Well, I think there's an argument I have here is that some people would like to see a full cup.
19:50:29 Process as opposed to something else.
19:50:36 That motion was made to deal with lack of a second. But there was some, later and I think that's what. Well, you had asked that question.
19:50:48 So I'm just throwing it back out there. Well, right. But I hear you. But that was decided early early early on in the discussion.
19:50:54 So I think, I, so, I, yeah, yeah, not to, not to change. Let me throw this out.
19:51:01 The actual law, laughs says that the county has the question. How to see people. Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong Lisa or Amy, but the The whack actually says.
19:51:18 And this is following the 2,009. Study that I mentioned that was multi party statewide. The whack was altered and it says that For new, aquaculture.
19:51:33 It can just, a shoreline conditional use permit is required. The local government has discretion to decide.
19:51:40 Whether it conditionally use permit. Is required or not for new for expanded. Or change of use to who we are.
19:51:54 So I just want to clarify that we are saying that all is conditional. It's our own permit process that's at question here.
19:52:01 Nothing really to do with that's at question here. Nothing really to do with that, or the question here.
19:52:05 Nothing really to do with that whack or the state per se because in shoreline management. There is no administrative or discretionary or full, that's our own.
19:52:14 The decision like what's the
19:52:22 Different processes, our own internal process to get to that conditional use based on the aquatic environment and or the shoreline environment as a nation upland.
19:52:32 So that's our own sort of way of in terms of this particular proposal. As I said at the beginning of the meeting.
19:52:41 Since 2021 anyway every version I've seen has a conditional use permit required for aquaculture regardless of what, how you classify it.
19:52:51 Thank you the table because she wouldn't have been driving. We're looking at that. Expansion.
19:53:13 Sir, very good. Okay, so just this says, I'll start with that. This says, New.
19:53:22 Okay. And this is. Okay. And this is good.
19:53:26 Expansion or conversion. In the aquatic environment. Which is, It's gonna be a CDC for you.
19:53:36 That's And for expansion in priority aquatic, it will be a C and in the aquatic environment, it'd be a C.
19:53:52 Except when adjacent to the natural destination. Let's see, take that, that discretion away.
19:53:58 But otherwise it would be discretionary for expansion. Again, and it could be things like how much is it expanding or What is the intensity of the current aquaculture situation
that's reporting to that wanted to convert to a different kind of agriculture.
19:54:13 Is it a, is it a combined? You know, things like that. All of. I still can't read that. Does it say expansion and conversion is the same line?
19:54:21 Yes, expansion or conversion is the same. And so it doesn't differentiate between, yeah. Regardless, it's gonna go through the Jefferson County's conditional.
19:54:34 Use permit process. One way, the other words, it's engineering or an actual conditional. That's true.
19:54:43 So what people in the community were saying that we want to see that there so they're getting the ability to have public input on any one of these.
19:54:53 That is true with the differentiation that with the standard CUP as a public hearing before a hearing examiner and with the type 2 process conditional administrative then it's
noticed to the surrounding properties and it's noticed and people have the ability to comment.
19:55:13 During the commentary both on the SEPA threshold determination and the permit application itself. So yes, there's an opportunity to come.
19:55:19 It's a different type of. But that's what I'm here. People want they want to have comment the ability to comment.
19:55:24 On that process and they're not. Restricted in any of formatus whoever they're They'll always be able to comment regardless how it's done in a written way with the India.
19:55:41 Right in a public hearing and that's what some of the public was saying is we want a full public.
19:55:44 We want a full standard CUP process because we want that public hearing in each case, whether it's new, whether it's expansion or whether it's conversion.
19:55:57 We want the same process in any of those. The specific comments that I'm referring to that I agree.
19:56:07 But they anybody has a right to come to this committee and come in. We are involved. Excuse me.
19:56:10 They can come to this. Under public hearing part where they can go to account admissions.
19:56:16 Not for the not not necessarily for a public hearing. There's always a comment.
19:56:25 Yes, we had 2 tonight.
19:56:31 May I ask you a question? Please. It sounds like. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm understanding you to say doesn't sound like what I understand the process to be.
19:56:43 So yes, one word. Because I'm not sure. I'm looking for we're having public hearing on the What I'm hearing you say is that there's a publishing, and that they could come before
us if there was a specific proposal or application. Every meeting.
19:57:13 There's somebody to come in or talk a comment period, okay? They do same thing with county commissioners.
19:57:21 Oh, I'm, commissioners could have influence on that process.
19:57:31 Back in the day, I think it was the nineties. The Hi, Commission actually acted in a quasi judicial role for store line permanent decisions.
19:57:40 That was changed when the county went to a hearing exam on their system. And the county commissioners got out of the business of making quasi judicial permit-based decisions.
19:57:51 The one kind of exception is when they approve long class. And they sign that log that for a developer, and they get involved in those.
19:58:01 But otherwise, the kind of question is, yeah, are not involved in permit decisions. That's why we have a code administrator and a hearing examiner.
19:58:11 That's it and they're not even involved. Some counties have it that the county commissioners will sit as the appeals body.
19:58:15 But we don't have that either. Then I would go to court. If it's a hearing, a decision, they'll go to court.
19:58:22 If others, some other types of administrator decisions can be appealed to the hearing examiner. So we have that system here.
19:58:27 So, but as you noted, like, do people go to that? The county commissioner's public hearing and public comment period and say whatever they want to say, of course.
19:58:35 And sometimes they come in on on permit things, but the commissioners don't make a decision about the purpose.
19:58:40 They they've given that authority to the department to handle. Yeah. And I would say that if the commissioners were making the decision as they will be on these regulations.
19:58:56 Then it's so it's writing in their lap. Whereas What you're saying is if the if the department if it was decided that this would not be a full standard UP and the neighbors
disagree.
19:59:15 They could go talk to the, to the board account commissioners and complain, but they still have to sue.
19:59:19 And that's And that came back after Jeff said that the second time, cause he said earlier that there is a.
19:59:28 They'd have to sue in that process. So that's on me. And that's what worries me.
19:59:35 I am, I just, I want a process where people get the chance. I would rather bring everybody along in the decision making process rather than pushing this a big decision like.
19:59:51 Big expansion or a big conversion where people, yes, they get to comment but still an administrator gets to decide who they want and potentially now they have to get to together
and raise a bunch of money and see their government.
20:00:11 I just don't, I'd rather bring everybody along. If they have that, they'll need.
20:00:13 So Josh, so somebody comes to the, to, let's say there's administrative process that goes along and somebody.
20:00:16 Somebody and it's done as a administrative conditional use.
20:00:22 Is that one person at DC that's making that decision or is that is that? Is that, you know, 2 or 3 of you that look at this and you talk about this kind of thing to make it
administrator decision on that or is that typically fall on one person's share?
20:00:38 Ultimately it falls on the code administrator shoulders to make permit decisions. That's that job. That said, of course there's going to be discussion depending on the complexity
of an issue or like as I mentioned before expertise and other in other regards but ultimately the administrator will make the decision if it's an administrative conditionings permit
carrying in general will make a decision on a standard either way.
20:00:58 The department packages that permit decision. Whether it's denial or approval with conditions and sent to the department of college who makes the final decision period on shoreline
condition.
20:01:12 Doesn't matter how we got there, then The appeal mechanism to department of culture could deny or they could change what we did here locally because they're co-administry in
the Shortly Mans Connect and then an aggrieved party could actually.
20:01:25 Appeal that decision and we'll go to the shoreline hearings for state process. Doesn't involve us.
20:01:31 So for sure, of that nature condition, Sure, there is an expanded trail for them to follow to do that on the state level.
20:01:43 So, and directly, they still haven't here to voice their concern. Yeah, and then they don't have to go a lawsuit then in that case, you know.
20:01:54 It does it cost. You know, I've never I'm not I don't think there's like a filing fee or it's not typical court process.
20:02:02 It's administrative process but I'm not you know I'm not hyper-familiar with that to be honest.
20:02:08 I've come to the growth management history, which is a different thing. Well, I know when we've done some, in that permit where where we've had to go through a notification
process and we've been most time we're told that nobody made any comment.
20:02:20 And but if you get comments on something like that, what's the staffs? Do and reaction to as far as taking those comments into in the play if you if you get you know 40 comments
on it on a administrative Permit.
20:02:38 How's the staff taking? What's the mechanism for looking at those and taking that into consideration?
20:02:44 It's at least somewhat similar to you taking listening to comments. Maybe a little bit different because you're working on a legislative case and a code administrator is working
on a permit case.
20:02:57 Right? Really it's the responsibility of the code administrator to look at the criteria. That's in the code.
20:03:02 And so the more specific the criteria, the better from my standpoint, because then that's what you're relying on.
20:03:08 Same thing is the hearing thing. That's what the airing service can look at as well. So you look at, you know, the overarching statue, the whack, look at the local policies
and code and you make a decision.
20:03:19 As objectively as possible based on that code. Now, There could be an indicator of what the sentiment is or there could be issues raised by people making comments that were
not considered in the same context.
20:03:32 Prior to those comments being received. So yes, they're going to be part of the overall decision package, but ultimately this the code administrator looks at the code and makes
a decision based on the code because that person knows that if appeal that's what the opponent body is gonna look at exactly how did you make that decision was it, apparently body is
going to look at exactly how did you make that decision? Was it, was it based on the code?
20:03:53 Was it defensible and so forth. Which I think is one of the big because that you know our citizens are interested how that's done when where they have the ability to make comment
on it and and that knowing that they're covered too. I mean, I think that's not arbitrary.
20:04:11 Yeah. So I mean, I think that's really important for everybody because there's a lot of people that have been Personally, I always like to see government.
20:04:22 So, a little bit, but then there is points like this where it does get more complex and ends.
20:04:28 But I think the key thing is that county residents are heard.
20:04:37 We're back to the same question. That we, progressed a few minutes ago and that is when we, Lisa and Josh.
20:04:45 It sounds, from this discussion I just heard. It sounds like. Yeah, so you can be discretionary is probably okay.
20:04:54 It's not much of a barrier to the industry. As a full CUP would be, it does.
20:05:02 But, the process. And I see a couple nuts. I, if we can agree that this is okay, then I think we can we can call it good.
20:05:15 This seems to be the speaking point for the. Good process. Should we have a motion of support for the?
20:05:23 And staff work on this, just the general. I mean, is there some kind of option to be helpful?
20:05:30 How about this? And this suggestion to that now, but I also want to be just clear because I know that Cynthia made a motion very early in this meeting process and that's back
when we were trying to figure out exactly how we're going to work through this.
20:05:47 And I think that you figured out a good way to go through it. So I really appreciate you doing that.
20:05:50 But I am still just wondering, because people mentioned it when they've talked and so there was no second at the time.
20:05:57 So that motion died for lack of a second, but I just want to be clear. Cause if we don't, if I don't hear anything else, then we're gonna run with what we've proposed, but I
just wanna be want to make sure that is.
20:06:08 What the majority of the planning mission wants us to do. So I'm not sure if you know another motion that just talks about this table is in order.
20:06:16 I'm only putting in that there and then fear comment, Matt. If someone were to make a motion to.
20:06:21 To ask that staff and the consultant prepare a full SNP that incorporates these changes from this staff report today and as well as the letter, the transmittal to the board
for consideration of the next meeting, then that would allow us to do that.
20:06:38 You have a second. Okay. It's been second to, direct staff to proceed. With the process.
20:06:49 Any additional discussion? I'd like to make a comment. I think we've had a very big job here to receive, you know, listening.
20:06:57 And making it kind of. Determination and how we're gonna go. I think what I've seen in all this literature, put together with staff with the, on community committee years past
and also all the feedback from the public hearing while we listen to And what Burke has done to help put all this together.
20:07:22 I think that it's an overall good package. I don't think it's gonna meet everybody's requirements or needs.
20:07:31 But it's certainly fair, unbelievable in my mind. So that's where I'm going.
20:07:39 Well, Chris, where you go here. On, favorite.
20:07:47 It's like fine in favor so that board is 5 low. But gosh, No special meeting next week.
20:07:56 We'll prepare the documents and by the end of next week we'll send you an agenda for November first.
20:08:00 That includes. Information you can read prior to that because ideally we'll spend you know as much time as needed, but hopefully if we're all in agreement, then we'll just,
you'll confirm that that represents what your recommendation is so that we can move on to the other business which would be the plan amendment, which would be the client amendment cycle
of hearing.
20:08:21 Yes. Well, this time I said, it wasn't, Lesia piece, right? Cause that's.
20:08:32 I, when I say to the shoreline page, cause I know your issue is your personal computer doesn't like The same kind of system drop Josh.