Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM031008 ~1~MAIh.- ~./~'2>ON~' ~A'9 06,\ ~(t} \ ~\ 10-, ~ ~I-<I \ .' I \ / / \,{t: ~/ ~Sb G~o/ '<VN~ District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin Interim County Administrator: Frank Gifford Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of March 10,2008 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners David Sullivan and John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: One of the Planning Commission members has submitted suggested changes to the Comprehensive Plan for the amendment cycles over the past several years that have not been considered due to staff workload and the Department of Community Development needs to start a list of proposed amendments that need to be addressed; the City of Port Townsend conducted a town meeting to get input from residents about community values to assist in the City's Comprehensive Plan update and The Leader made it appear that the meeting was for "City residents only," but at the County's Critical Areas Ordinance hearing the majority of comments on how rural lands in the County should be regulated were made by City residents; a citizen suggested that staff may be giving the Board bad advice about proposed fees; the County should respond to Public Records Requests electronically whenever possible; when the people who were appointed to advisory boards on today's Consent Agenda get their notification, they should also receive a copy of the Open Public Meetings Act; the Board needs to understand how a recession will affect the County's economy and the Land Trust Conservation Futures farms that rely on grant funding; two people asked the Board to waive the attorney-client privilege on the document that they received from the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding the draft Critical Areas Ordinance; the Board should respond publicly to issues mentioned during the Public Comment Period; many Port Townsend residents rely on locally gwwn produce; currently there is an effort to polarize residents in the County and the City when everyone should be working together; there are people living in the hills in rural areas of the County that don't have septic systems or water; and Commissioner Austin follows through when people ask him questions. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. I. RESOLUTION NO. 19-08 re: Naming a Private Road Hectors Way; James and Sandra Munn, and Howard Gilbert and Pamela Roberts, Petitioners Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 2. AGREEMENT NO. 0763-23801-01, Amendment No.1 re: Family Support Grant; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services 3. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated March 5, 2008 Totaling $723,153.37 4. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board; Mike Ewing, District #4 5. Accept Recommendation from Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board to Appoint Four (4) Individuals: Richard Hild, District #2, to Serve the Remainder of a Term Expiring 1/9/1 0; and Jill Silver, District # I; John Richmond, District #4; and Katherine Ackerman, District #5 to Each Serve a Four (4) Year Term Expiring 3/10/12 6. Advisory Board Appointment; Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee (MRC); Tribal Representative; Aleta Erickson COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed: . Commissioner Sullivan reviewed his schedule for the week. . Commissioner Austin reported that the State Board of Health recently held a Special Meeting to discuss the shortage of the influenza vaccine for HlB. Children must have 5 shots ofthis vaccine to attend daycare. The BOH has changed the rules temporarily to allow children who have had only 4 shots to attend daycare. They are also prioritizing who will get the vaccines. . The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) meeting in Blyn last week was well attended. Jefferson County is split into 2 action areas, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal. There was a discussion at the meeting abouf the PSP taking responsibility for monitoring all the streams and waterways in the Sound and making the data available to all jurisdictions. . The Board discussed several issues brought up at a meeting last week regarding Port Townsend Paper Company. . Chairman Johnson attended the Washington State Association of Counties Legislative Steering Committee last week. The Committee discussed proposed State legislation regarding agricultural buildings, the ferries, and mobile homes parks. He will be going to Olympia this week for the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) meeting. . Traffic Safety personnel have pointed out that the electric car should not travel to the Animal Shelter because of the speed limits on the roads. Commissioner Austin suggested that the County may want to consider constructing a new corridor for electric vehicles. . Commissioner Sullivan stated that during the 2008 Budget discussions, the Board suggested that the Elected Officials and Department Heads meet to discuss options for working together on the challenges that will be presented in the 2009 Budget process. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the minutes of January 28 and February 4, 2008 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 ('~'-"'\ ~~-'~~" ~y,;,~~.", BID OPENING re: Publication of County Legal Notices: Temporary Interim County Administrator Frank Gifford opened and read the two bids received for the newspaper of record. The bid amount for The Jefferson County Port Townsend Leader was $7.00 per column inch. The bid amount for the Peninsula Daily News was $6.00 per column inch. He noted that the bids \'1ill need to be analyzed and a recommendation for bid award will be on the Board's agenda next week. Planning Commission lnterviews; Commissioner District #3: The Board interviewed the following people who are interested in representing District #3 on the Planning Commission: Tom Brotherton, Barbara Moore-Lewis, Michael Eastman, and Bud Schindler. The final applicant is scheduled to be interviewed on next week's agenda. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: The following items were discussed: . Presentation on the proposed naming of a non-motorized trail in the Chimacum Valley to be the Rick Tollefson Memorial Trail. Included was an update by Public Works staff on the status of the project. . Update on the County Administrator hiring process. Deliberations and Decision on tile Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance: Chairman Johnson opened the meeting in the Superior Courtroom. Assistant Planner Joel Peterson reviewed the history of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). He provided a line-in, line-out document with recommended changes from staff that address areas of concern documented in the original staff report. Typographical corrections have also been made. The Board also received a listing of 136 findings and conclusions that document background on the development ofthe ordinance. Staff recommended that the Board make a motion to approve the final Planning Commission recommendation on the Critical Areas Ordinance with modifications and then begin their deliberations. Commissioner Sullivan moved to accept the final Planning Commission CAO with modifications as deliberated this evening. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullivan reviewed the history of the process, several findings from the previous ordinance, ORDINANCE NO. 17-1213-04. and the minutes of the Board's deliberations in 2004. He noted when the previous ordinance was passed, the State Department of Ecology (DOE), the State Department offish and Wildlife (DFW), the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT) and the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) had recommended that the County use the best available science (BAS) provided by DOE at that time. Minutes from December, 2004 indicate that "when the State comes forward with adopted BAS standards, the County's ordinance can be amended." Director of Community Development Al Scalf reviewed the findings and conclusions before the Board that related to Commissioner Sullivan's comments. Commissioner Sullivan asked staff to include a reference to the Tomassi report in the new findings. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 f;)"""'., :'. '\:'i. :';':<1 ~--~.. ~\J{rw'" Al Scalf noted that the original section in the Jefferson County Code was known as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" and has been renamed "Critical Areas" which is consistent with the Growth Management Act. He then reviewed the new draft findings and conclusions. He stated that the Prosecuting Attorney has recommended that the Board include the legislative findings and conclusions in their motion on the ordinance because they document the extensive public process. Staff is confident that they can implement the ordinance that is before the Board and process permits. Commissioner Austin reviewed his areas of concern. . Article II; 18.22.070 General Exemptions: (11) Irrigation. Operation, maintenance and repair of ditches, reservoirs, ponds and other structures and facilities which were created or developed as part of normal irrigation activities on or prior to. Commissioner Austin stated that it appears that the end of the sentence is missing. Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins noted that staff is recommending that the sentence end at the word facilities because it is assumed that any exemptions were legal at the time they were established. . Article II; 18.22.070 General Exemptions: (20) Drilling or digging and maintenance of wells; provided, that impacts to wetlands and their buffers are minimized and disturbed areas are immediately restored; Commissioner Austin stated that he would like to see the word wetlands changed to critical areas. The other Commissioners agreed ,'lith the change in the language. . Article II; 18.22.090 Reasonable Economic Use Variance: (5) Conditions. Commissioner Austin suggested adding a f.l to read: The Administrator mav require a performance bond to cover the cost of review and replacement if mitigating conditions are not met. His concern is how the County will come up with the funds to review, replace, and take care of the damage that may have been done if the mitigation is not met. Al Scalf noted that he did not recall any discussion of performance bonds during the public process. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that they were mentioned in the Critical Areas Ordinance Review Committee (CAORC) Minority Report, attachment C, page 82GJ. There was a discussion about the inclusion of performance bonds. The other Commissioners and staff agreed on the additional language. . Article V; 18.22.160 Geologically Hazardous Areas: (2)(d) Channel Migration Zones (CMZ). Areas subject to the natural movement of stream channel meanders. In the delineated high risk CMZ area, channel migration is likely within the next 100 years. Areas protected from channel movement due to the existence of permanent levees or infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges constructed and maintained by public agencies are excludedfrom the high or moderate risk designation. These areas also do not include areas outside the meander hazard which may be subject to rapid movement of the entire stream channel or avulsion. The Board agreed that These areas be replaced with Channel migration zones to clarify the last sentence. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 . Article V; 18.22.170 Protection Standards: (3)(a) Clearing and Grading. Commissioner Austin suggested adding (vi) Temporarv sedimentation and erosion control measures will be in place prior to grading or construction. He noted that if it is already in the Building Code it would not need to be added. Al Scalf answered that it is in the Stormwater Manual and the handouts. Commissioner Sullivan also stated that he had concerns about this section, but after a brief discussion, the Board agreed not to change or add any language. . Article VI; Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA): 18.22.220 (6) Sources used for Identification. Herring and smelt spavming times and locations are outlined in WAC 220-110- 240 through WAC 220-110-260, Hydraulic Code Rules, Technical Report No. 79, and the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas. Commissioner Austin noted that in the line in/line out staff changes the WAC number was corrected. Al Scalf noted that Hydraulic Code Rules was changed to Hydraulic Code Guidelines. The Commissioners concurred with the staff changes. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.270 Protection Standards: Commissioner Austin stated that he would like to see a section @ added to read, Lighting will be directed awav from the FWHCA. The Commissioners agreed with the additional section. . Article VI- Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.270 Protection Standards; Table 18.22.270 Stream Buffers; Commissioner Austin explained that the definition section of the Unified Development Code (UDC) is JCC 18.10. He asked the procedure for changing this section to reflect the new definitions for stream typing in the CAO? Stacie Hoskins replied that typically, they would just reference the State Department of Natural Resource's WAC that identifies the methods used for stream typing. Commissioner Austin recommended that a note be put below Table 18.22.270 that states, Stream tvoe shall be determined using the criteria set forth in WAC 222-16-030. He also suggested that within their bankfull width be replaced throughout the document with ordinary high water mark. . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.300 Classification/Designation; Multiple Ratings. In order to impose only those land use restrictions necessary to protect low value wetlands and to increase protection of higher value areas of complex wetlands, Jefferson County will recognize multiple ratings of these complex wetland systems as long as the ratings do not compromise the functions and values of the highest rated wetland within the complex system. Commissioner Austin stated that there is a multiple ratings system in the Wetland Ratings System Manual and it may confuse the issue if the County includes this language. The Board agreed that the entire paragraph needs to be deleted. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10, 2008 . Article VII - Wetlands; Protection Standards; Table 18.22.330(1); Table 18.22.330(2),Table 18.22.330(3) Commissioner Austin commented that there were several inconsistencies in the tables and Al Scalf replied that staff has done a major overhaul on them. Al Scalf stated that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) suggested that single family residences (SFRs) be considered a moderate impact. Staff is recommending this change for SFRs from low impact to moderate. Staff is also recommending that the Board condense the two provisions of 1 to 5 acres and 5 acres into one statement under moderate impact that states Single-familv residential use on parcels of one (1) acre or larger at the beginning of Table (2). The language SFR use on parcels smaller than one (1) acre are high impact was suggested at the beginning of Table (3). The Board agreed with these staff recommendations. . Article VIII- Special Reports; 18.22.420 Geotechnical Report; (3)(a) Information Requirements. Commissioner Austin asked that a (iv) be added that states, Level of hazard in a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ.) The Board agreed with the additional language. Chairman Johnson reviewed his areas of concern. . Article II; 18.22.070 General Exemptions; (16) The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling soil, planting crops. or changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. and . Article II; 18.22.070 General Exemptions; (17) The enhancement of a buffer by planting indigenous vegetation; Chairman Johnson stated that in (16) it appears that planting crops is not allowed and in (17) planting crops is allowed. This is not clear to him. Commissioner Sullivan suggested adding language to (16) to read, provided that these activities do not have anv adverse impact on the protective functions ofthe buffer. The other Commissioners concurred with the suggested language. . Article II; 18.22.090 Reasonable Economic Use Variance; (3) Hearing Examiner Process. The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing on the variance request. Decisions of the hearing examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the appellate examiner. Public notice shall be provided asfollows..... Chairman Johnson noted that the County no longer uses an appellate examiner in the process and an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision goes directly to Superior Court. . Article V; 18. 22.170 Protection Standards (6)(f)(g) Buffers - Standard Requirements. (f) A standard buffer of 30 feet shall be established from the top, toe and all edges of landslide hazard areas, and (g) A building setback line is required to be five (5) feet from the edge of any buffer area for a landslide hazard area OR to outside the filll extent of the high risk channel migration zone (CMZ), whichever is greater. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10, 2008 Chairman Johnson asked who determines the 30 foot buffer? Stacie Hoskins explained that staff and the landowner do a site visit to clearly define the top or toe topography. If they cannot come to agreement, the Department may require a geotechnical analysis. The requirements for the varying degrees of landslide hazard areas were discussed. Chairman Johnson also commented that he thinks a 5 foot setback from the buffer seems close and there was a discussion about doing construction work within this limited area. The Planning Commission Chairman Peter Downey explained that when they discussed the buffer, they were addressing the maintenance ofthe building after construction. . Article V; 18. 22.170 Protection Standards; (7) Reducing Buffer Widths. The administrator may reduce the standard landslide hazard area buffer width only when the project applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the administrator, that the project cannot meet the required setback. The reduced buffer must adequately protect the proposed project from the risks of the landslide hazard area to the maximum extent possible. Under no circumstances shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 15feet. Chairman Johnson asked about the liability to the County if the buffer width is reduced by the administrator? It was noted that a request for reduction of the buffer requires a professional geotechnical analysis and report. The County is not liable, and in severe cases a "hold harmless" agreernent is required. . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.330 Protection Standards: Chairman Johnson stated that he would like to see one term such as a qualified wetland specialist used consistently throughout the document. . Article X - Stewardship Incentives; Watershed Monitoring; Residential BMPs; Chairman Johnson stated that incentives are important in every aspect of the ordinance. Staff and Peter Downey explained that Article X addresses subjects that don't quite fit in other sections. There was a discussion about whether these items are appropriate in the ordinance and how they relate to each other and the ordinance as a whole. The Board agreed that the title of Article X be changed to Implementation Strategies. It was also suggested that 18.22.630 Watershed Monitoring should be removed from Article X and addressed in a separate section. The proposed Watershed Monitoring Program was discussed at length. The Board agreed that Watershed Monitoring become Article XI and Adaptive Management become Article XII. Commissioner Sullivan reviewed his areas of concern. . Article II; 18.22.080 Nonconforming Uses (I)Any use or structure in existence on the effective date of this Chapter 18.22 that does not meet the buffer requirements of this chapter for any designated critical area shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Sullivan asked that language be added to state, Anv legal use or legal structure..... The other Commissioners agreed \'lith the additional language. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 . Article II; 18.22.090 Reasonable Economic Use Variance (3)(d)All hearing notices shall include a legal description of the property involved, and a concise description of the variance requested in non-legal language. Commissioner Sullivan asked that the word non-legal be replaced by lID'. The other Commissioners agreed with the wording change. . Article II; 18.22.090 Reasonable Economic Use Variance (4)(b)(1): (b) There is nofeasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to critical areas or associated buffers. Feasible on-site alternatives shall include, but are not limited to: (1) Reduction in density; Commissioner Sullivan asked that the language: scope. scale or intensity be added after density. . Article II; 18.22.090 Reasonable Economic Use Variance (4)(d): Disturbance of critical areas has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration in critical area btifJers to the minimum extent possible. After a discussion about the Hearing Examiner process and the staffs interpretation of the language, the Board agreed not to make a change. . Article II; 18.22.095 Physical Separation, Functional Isolation; Buffers areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a critical area and do not protect the critical area from adverse impacts shall be excludedjrom buffers otherwise required by this Chapter. Functional isolation can occur due to existing public roads, structures, vertical separating, or any other relevant physical characteristic. The Administrator may require a Biological Site Assessment to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated Commissioner Sullivan suggested that the language be changed to read at the beginning of the paragraph from Buffers areas which are both physically separated..to A buffered area which is both phvsicallv separated and functionallv isolated from a critical area and does not protect the critical area from adverse impacts. Functional isolation can occur due to existing public roads. structures. vertical separating. or anv other relevant phvsical characteristic. The Administrator mav require a Biological Site Assessment to determine whether the buffer is functionallv isolated. . Article III; Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Commissioner Sullivan stated that critical aquifer recharge areas have not been discussed much during the CAO process. He cited sections of the Comprehensive Plan where these areas are addressed. Al Scalf noted that several policies and goals for aquifer recharge areas in the Comprehensive Plan are included in the findings and conclusions. Commissioner Sullivan answered that this is acceptable. . Article IV; Frequently Flooded Areas: Commissioner Sullivan cited several sections of the Comprehensive Plan where frequently flooded areas are addressed including page 8-28, Goal ENG 11.0, ENP 11.2, 11.9, and Critical Areas Strategy 7 on page 8-32. Al Scalf noted that none of the strategies in the Comprehensive Plan were included in Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 ~"'o"'.. I;;', '\,J;'.; I~ , ..... .... "" .~.~~"' \H,...,,' the findings and conclusions. ENG 11.0 and ENP 11.9 were included. ENP 11.2 wasn't included because Title 15 is the Floodplain Hazard Ordinance and Title 18 deals with critical areas. Commissioner Sullivan accepted this explanation. . Article V; 18.22.160 Geologically Hazardous Areas (3)(h) Sources. Perkins Geosciences. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Mapsfor the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County. Washington. Seattle, WA. Commissioner Sullivan stated that a public comment had referenced a study on the Hoh River done by Perkins that the County has had for 4 years. The County has told people that the CAO doesn't apply to the Hoh River and the Westend but this is not stated in the ordinance. It was explained that there is not a map of the Upper Hoh River channel migration zone and that is why it is not included. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that the ordinance include a listing ofthe all rivers that do not have CMZ mapping. Staff agreed with his suggestion. . Article V; 18.22.170 Protection Standards (2)(d) Drainage and Erosion Control. In addition to any erosion control methods specified in the drainage and erosion control plan, the administrator may require hydroseeding of exposed or disturbed areas. Commissioner Sullivan stated that or other best management practices (BMPs) be added to the end of the sentence. . Article V; 18.22.170 Protection Standards (9)(b)(v) Geotechnical Reports. All newly created building sites will be stable under normal geologic conditions (if applicable). Commissioner Sullivan stated that he wants this to read ....normal geologic and hvdrogeologic conditions. The other Commissioners agreed to the added language. . Article VI; Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) Commissioner Sullivan asked if any of the Comprehensive Plan open space goals and policies were cited in the findings and conclusions? He stated that OSG 2.0 and 3.0, OSP 3.1, and General Comprehensive Plan Goal 15 (page 6- 15) refer to this subject and he wants to add them to the findings and conclusions. He stated that LMP 14.4 and Environmental Strategy 9 need to be added to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat findings because they address the inclusion of some saltwater issues. The other Commissioners agreed with the additions. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.210 Process and Requirementsfor Designating Habitats of Local Importance as Critical Areas. (7)(d) Review and Approval Process. Each ordinance creating a species or habitat of local importance shall include a sunset clause. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the way this is written he thinks an important species could be removed just by inattention and not tracking. He would want any species removed by action of the Board. Commissioner Austin suggested the language: Each ordinance creating a species or habitat of Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 ~'0"C ~",." '<\"~ ~. . "'.., ~is"~:':,,,,,T local importance shall include a periodic review or reassessment of the initial designation. The Board and Staff agreed with the new language. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.210 Process and Requirements for Designating Habitats of Local Importance as Critical Areas; (8) Removal ji-om Designation. Species or habitats of local significance may be removed at any time, PROVIDED, that they no longer meet the criteria set forth in subsection 5, infra. (e.g, as a result ofa natural catastrophe or climatic change event)....... Commissioner Sullivan suggested that subsection 5, inji-a be changed to JCC 18.22.210(5) for clarity. The other Commissioners agreed with the new wording. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 1822.270 Protection Standards (5)(b)(ii) The standard buffer shall be measured landward horizontally on both sides of the stream from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as identified in the field Nevertheless, the required buffer shall be extended to include any adjacent regulated wetland(.~), landslide hazard areas and/or erosion hazard areas..... Commissioner Sullivan asked why CMZs weren't included after landslide hazard areas and there was a discussion about why CMZs would not be included in the FWHCA section. The buffers would be significant with a CMZ inclusion. The intention was not to have buffers added on to other buffers. Commissioner Austin suggested that Nevertheless, the required buffer shall be extended to include.....be replaced by the required buffer shall include...... The Board and staff agreed with the wording change. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.270 Protection Standards; Table 18.22.270 Stream Buffers; Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe submitted a comment with EPA documentation suggesting a 50 foot buffer for the Ns (Non-fish bearing seasonal streams) streams ifit is less than a 20% grade. The Conservation District also voiced concerns that photos of some Ns streams show swales instead of streams. Commissioner Sullivan stated he would consider reducing the buffer in this case. The other Commissioners agreed to this change on N s stream buffers. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.270 Protection Standards; (6)(b) The buffer shall not be reduced to less than seventy~five (75) percent of the standard buffer. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the Jamestown S 'Klallam Tribe suggested other limits of 50 feet for S and F streams and 25 feet for NP and NS in their comments. After staff offered several scenarios, Commissioner Sullivan agreed that a change not be made. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.270 Protection Standards; (8) Stiffer Marking Commissioner Sullivan noted that (a) was deleted which left (b) and so (b) needs to be removed from the formatting. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.290 Stewardship Alternative; Article VII sets forth the prescriptive requirements for wetland buffers. Applicants for development permits or approvals subject to this Article VII may elect to comply with the Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) provisions set forth in Article IX of this Chapter in lieu of the prescriptive requirements set forth herein. Commissioner Sullivan noted the first sentence should say for wetlands and not for wetland buffers. He added that the COARC Minority Report and others had recommended that the CASP be limited to onlv Category III and IV wetlands. He requested that wording to this effect be added to the end of the last sentence. . Article VII- Wetlands; 18.22310 RegulatedActivities (2) The dumping, discharging or filling of any material; Commissioner Sullivan suggested the following language revision: The dumping, discharging of anv material. or placement of anv fill. The other Board members agreed with the suggested change. . Article VII- Wetlands; 18.22.310 Regulated Activities (9) Wetland Buffers. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the suggested changes to the wetland buffer tables need to be reflected in this section. . Article VII- Wetlands; 18.22.330 Protection Standards; (2)(b) Delineation If the wetland is located off of the property involved in the project application and is inaccessible, the best available information shall be used to determine the wetland boundary and class. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that the last word class be changed to category. The other Commissioners agreed with this wording change. . Article VII- Wetlands; 18.22.330 Protection Standards; (2)(c) Delineation After approval of the delineation report, the wetland boundary shall be staked orfZagged in the field Commissioner Sullivan stated that he thinks the wetland boundary should be staked or flagged in the field prior to the approval of the delineation report. Staff agreed that this should be changed. Donna Frostholm suggested ,removing After approval of the delineation report from the beginning of the sentence. The process for delineation was discussed. The Board agreed with this change in the language. . Article VII- Wetlands; 18.22.330 Protection Standards (2)(d)(i) Delineation Single Family Residences; ....a special report may be waived by the administrator for construction ofa single- family residence on an existing lot of record if DCD staff or a qualified wetland evaluator determines....,. : Commissioner Sullivan asked for clarification of a situation when DCD staff could make that determination. After a scenario was given, he agreed that would be appropriate. . Article VII- Wetlands; 1822.330 Protection Standards (5)(a) Buffer Markings. Apermanent physical indicator along the upland boundary of the wetland buffer area shall be installed and permanently maintained. Commissioner Sullivan suggested the wording, A permanent phvsical indicator along the upland boundary of the wetland buffer area mav be Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 installed and permanentlv maintained and should be marked with proper signage. Stacie Hoskins noted that most people would not want to have signs on their property. Commissioner Sullivan then suggested shall be installed and permanentlv maintained or marked with proper signage. Peter Downey stated that this was discussed during the Planning Commission's deliberations and they decided against the signage. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed to leave it as it was written. . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.340 Non-Compensatory Enhancement Commissioner Sullivan asked why monitoring isn't included with the enhancement? Donna Frostholm replied that references are made to an enhancement plan in this section and monitoring is required as part of a plan. Al Scalf noted that monitoring would be required as a condition of approval. . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.350 Mitigation (2) Compensatory Mitigation - General Requirements Commissioner Sullivan noted that the DOE's comment letter suggested that ill be added to read, monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective actions. The Board agreed that this language should be added. . Article VII - Wetlands; 1822.350 Mitigation (3) Compensatory Mitigation - Type, Location, and Timing Commissioner Sullivan noted that the DOE's comment letter suggested that ili.l be added to read, A mitigation plan shall include a monitoring plan. The duration. frequencv and methods of monitoring depend on a proiect's goals. obiectives. and performance standards. In general. monitoring is required for at least five (5) vears. If a scrub-shrub or forested vegetative communitv is proposed. monitoring mav be required for ten (10) vears or more. Monitoring mav be extended if interim performance standards are not met. The Board agreed that this language should be added. . Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.460 Critical Area Stewardship Plans - Generally: Property owners may elect to develop site-specific critical area stewardship plans (C.'ASPs) as an alternative to the prescriptive requirements of Articles VI through Vll of this Chapter 1822 JCc. At a minimum, the CASP must protect the existingfunctions and values of the critical area. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he would like the referenced articles spelled out to read.....prescriptive requirements of Articles VI (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) through Vll (Wetlands) of this Chapter 1822 JCc. He stated that DOE also recommended revising the next sentence to read, At a minimum. the CASP must provide equal or greater protection of critical area functions and values than the prescriptive standards of buffers and setbacks. The other Commissioners agreed with the added language. . Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 1822.465(1) Performance Standards: Performance standards will vary from one plan to another depending on the critical area being protected and the potential hazards associated with the proposed development. Chosen pe~formance standards should be quantifiable so that they can be Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 . measured They may include maintenance of a wetland's hydraulic capacity, percent ground cover in revegetated areas, control of existing invasive plants, survival of shrubs and trees and etc. Commissioner Sullivan asked that the word existing be removed from the last sentence. The other Commissioners agreed with the deletion. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18. 22. 470(1) CASP Contents - Existing Conditions: (1) A site plan identifYing the critical area being protected by the CASP. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he wants this to read: A site plan of the entire parcel identifying the critical area being protected bv the CASP. The other Commissioners agreed with the added language. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.470(2) CASP Contents - Existing Conditions: (2) When wetlands are present on the property, a wetland delineation report shall be completed in accordance with JCC 18.22.450. The most current edition of Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington shall be used in preparing the report. The report shall detail the scores determined for hydrologic, water quality and habitatfunctions, and shall ensure the most pertinent score is accorded the greatest weight in rating the wetland The prescriptive wetland buffers appropriate to the wetland class and proposed activity defined in JCC 18.22.330 shall be reviewed Commissioner Sullivan stated that he wants language added to show that the ratings forms and supplemental information required for completing those forms shall be included in the report. The other Commissioners agreed with the additional language. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 1822.470(3) CASP Contents - Existing Conditions: (3) When surface waters are present, a copy of the DNR Water Type Inventory for lentic and lotic water bodies shall be provided The prescriptive buffers defined in JCC 18.22.270 shall be reviewed Commissioner Sullivan asked if the County has the DNR Inventory document? Commissioner Austin suggested the revised language: Surface waters and wetlands shall be surveved for accurate stream tvping and/or wetland rating bv a qualified professional, consistent with State law. The other Commissioners agreed with the change. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.470(4)(6) CASP Contents - Existing Conditions: (4)Habitats of Local Importance documented by Jefferson County on and within 3/10ths of one mile the property shall be documented, and (6)A description of the property and adjacent watershed to include: (a) A contour map describing land elevations within 3/10ths of one mile of the property... Commissioner Sullivan asked how the 3/1 Oths of one mile was determined? Peter Downey noted that it has to do with criteria in the designation of habitats oflocal importance. This will also provide the mapping of these areas. The Board agreed to not change it. Currently there are no species of local importance in the County. . . . Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 f}~'W"", i..........\\-~ ~~ ",\. e'" '\"'~"~ . Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.470(5) CASP Contents - Existing Conditions: (5) Presence of other critical areas such as flood plains. Commissioner Sullivan directed that the wording be changed to read, Presence of anv other critical areas. The other Commissioners agreed with the language change. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.470(7) CASP Contents - Existing Conditions: (7) A qualitative assessment of surface waters to include stream and/or pond substrate types, presence of large organic debris and riffles and pools, potential fish spawning areas, observed fish and aquatic invertebrates, etc. Commissioner Sullivan directed that the word organic be changed to woodv. The Board members agreed with the change. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.480(1) Description of the Management Proposal (1) A clear statement of the goals of the plan and how those goals will protect the functions and values. This section shall also describe the goals of the property owner, including proposed multiple uses of the critical area and/or the areas within the buffers defined in JCC 18.22.270 and JCC 18.22.330. Commissioner Sullivan directed that the wording be changed to state A clear statement of the goals of the plan and how meeting those goals will protect the functions and values..... Al Scalf added that staff had the following suggested change also. A clear statement of the goals, obiectives. and performance standards ofthe plan and how implementation ofthis plan will protect the functions and values.... Commissioner Sullivan agreed that staffs recommended language addressed his concern. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.480(5)(e) Description of the Management Proposal (5) A detailed plan describing the maintenance of existing vegetation and/or re-vegetation of the site....... (e) Short term protection methods such as protective tubes, socks, control of other vegetation that might out-compete the planted stock, mulching requirements, etc. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he thinks ending the sentence with etc. leaves it open ended. Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Austin agreed that etc. added to the meaning and did not need to be changed or deleted. Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); 18.22.520(1) Periodic Monitoring: (1) Identification of the CASP including the specific Performance Standards adopted pursuant to JCC 18.22.465; Commissioner Sullivan stated that he would like this to read, Identification of the goals and actions to achieve those goals...... Staff suggested changing the language to read, Identification of the goals. obiectives. and performance standards of the CASP including the specific Performance Standards adopted pursuant to JCC 18.22.465. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation. . . . . Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 . Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); Commissioner Sullivan asked for an overview of how the CASP relates to building. Al Scalf explained that when a person applies for a stormwater permit, they have the option of doing a CASP. DCD is working with the Conservation District and Environmental Health on developing an adaptive management program and the monitoring that will need to be in place before they issue a CASP permit. This program will be reviewed by the Board before it is implemented as County Administrative Policy. A property owner has several options to deal with critical areas, the CASP is one of those options. The permit approval goes with the property and there is notice to title on the deed ifthe property is sold. . Article X - Stewardship Incentives; Watershed Monitoring; Residential BMPs; 18.22.640(3)(a) Residential Best Management Practices (BMPs): (3)Landscape Management. (a) Do not plant invasive ornamental plants in or adjacent to wetland buffers. Commissioner Sullivan asked that the language be changed to read Do not plant invasive ornamental plants in or adiacent to all critical area buffers. Al Scalfreviewed some of the staffs recommended revisions. . Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs); 18.22.250 Regulated Activities: (1) Stream Crossings (d) All stream crossings are required to pass 100-year projected floodflows, even in non~fish bearing Type Np and Ns streams. Al Scalf stated that are required to pass 1 OO-year projected flood flows was replaced by the language All stream crossings shall be designed based on the 100-vear pro;ected flood flows, even in non-fish bearing Tvpe Np and Ns streams. The Board agreed with the new language. . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.330 Protection Standards;(2)(d)(i)(B) Delineation. Single Family Residences: Al Scalf suggested that the DOEs "Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2" be changed to Washington State Wetland Rating Svstem for Western Washington (2004) Ecology Publication # 04-06-025, or as amended in categorizing and rating wetlands. This is recommended in the DOE's comments. The Board agreed with the change. . Article VII - Wetlands; Protection Standards; Table 18.22.330(1): Table 18.22.330(2);Table 18. 22. 330(3) Al Scalf reviewed staff revisions in the tables. He explained the process and agency responsibility for forest practices permits. He pointed out that the wetland buffers are consistent with DOE's guidelines. Commissioner Sullivan noted that several of the buffers in Table 18.22.330(1) are less than in the current ordinance. Peter Downey explained that the new rating system in the DOE manual actually reduces many buffers. The Board agreed with the information in the revised tables. Page 1 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10, 2008 . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.330 Protection Standards; (8)(d)(e)(f) Averaging Buffer Widths. (d) The minimum buffer width of a Category lor II wetland is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the widths established in sections (5)(d) above; or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater, and (e) The minimum buffer width of a Category III or IV wet/and is no less thanfijty percent (50%) of the widths established in section (5)(d) above; or twenty five (25) feet, whichever is greater; and (I) The buffer has not been reduced in accordance with section (5) above. Buffer averaging is not allowed if the width of the entire buffer has been reduced already. Al Scalf noted that the follovving changes were made by Staff: (d) The minimum buffer width is no less than seventv-five percent (75%) of the standard prescribed buffer width: ( e) The buffer has not been reduced in accordance with section (5) above. Buffer averaging is not allowed if the width of the entire buffer has been reduced alreadv. These sections deal with the table and prescribed buffers. Portions were deleted and/or consolidated. The Board agreed with the staff changes. . Article VII - Wetlands; 18.22.350 Mitigation; Table 18.22.350; Required Replacement Ratiosfor Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Al Scalf noted that staffredid the table which is taken directly from the DOE manual. Commissioner Austin noted that there are footnotes in the manual. He asked if they were incorporated in the contents of the table? Al Scalf said that they weren't included. Commissioner Austin recommended that the footnotes be added. The Board agreed with the replacement ofthe table and the addition of the footnotes. Al Scalf noted that in thirteen years there has never been an application for compensatory mitigation. . Article VIII - Special Reports; 18.22.450 Wet/and Delineation Report; (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Wetland delineation reports shall be prepared by a biologist with wetlands expertise, a Professional Wetland Scientist certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists or an individualorjirm who has been certified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Region 10, to perform wetland delineations. Al Scalf noted that staff recommends that the sentence stop at Scientists because the Army Corp of Engineers doesn't have a certification program in place right now. The Board agreed with the deletion. . Article IX - Alternative Protection Standards - Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs); Al Scalf reported that DOE recommended adding a section that was reviewed by the Wetland Team. The team came to consensus about the recommended criteria. The recommendation also came before the Planning Commission. The additional section reads: 18.22.461 Applicability and Limitations: The following provisions define the applicability and limitations of the CASP. L CASPs applv to onlv residential development related activities and appurtenances. including accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Thev mav be used in Rural Village Centers (RVCs) but are not to be used in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Thev are not to be used for commercial or industrial uses or developments. as identified and defined in JCC 18.10. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 10,2008 ~/'''''\ ,~, ~ 2. Thev can be applied to properties 1/4 acre or larger. 3. CASPs are onlv applicable to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Article VI) or Wetlands (Article VII). 4. CASPs must provide equal or greater protection of critical area functions and values than the prescriPtive standards of buffers and setbacks. ~ Thev mav be applied within CategorY II. III & IV wetlands and buffers. and within buffers of CategorY I wetlands. Thev cannot be used in CategorY I wetlands. 6. CASPs mav not be used for activities involving fill for building within wetlands and FWHCAs but mav be used for fill or vegetation management within these critical areas ifit is for enhancement of their functions. 7. CASPs will be administered as a Tvpe I Permit. per JCC 18.40. 8. A CASP mav be prepared bv anv person. but it is stronglv advised that a qualified professional be at least consulted. The Board and staff discussed the pros and cons of notifYing neighbors when a property owner is making application for a CASP. The Board agreed to add the section but not make changes to the permit type that would require notification of the neighbors. Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to prepare a Critical Areas Ordinance with findings of fact and conclusions oflaw as modified through the Board's deliberations to be presented on the Commissioners Consent Agenda on March 17,2008. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , . , JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (7W/t11 _ Jini'~n, Chair ~' /'. L'J. .' / A" i' ~ tt,-J,:.~~. ...._'Af~ Davl W. Sulhvan, Member ]:) ember ",,- 'f...l ,'\ ~ ti(~ erne Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 17