Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM022309 District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of February 23, 2009 The meeting was called to order at the appointed time by Chairman David Sullivan in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens in attendance at the meeting: a citizen said that he thinks if the Board takes an item off the Consent Agenda to be revised that the revised item should be carried over to the next week's agenda; a person stated her opinion that planners should not review building permits especially for decks and fences; a citizen stated that he thinks it would save paper if the annual inventory of capitalized assets was posted on the webpage and made available before the Board's meeting; a person offered suggestions for getting rid of the rats in the Courthouse and noted that he is concerned that they could start an electrical fire in the walls; a citizen said that he thinks the State Department of Ecology (DOE) has already made up their minds about the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and they want the entire shoreline of Jefferson County to become a critical area; and a person stated that the Board needs to have a meeting with County residents and listen to what they have to say about improving the local economy. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT, Intergovernmental re: Cooperative Purchasing Agreement; Jefferson County Central Services; Washington State Department of General Administration 2. AGREEMENT re: MedicalIHealth Professional Services; Jefferson County Public Health; Public Health Seattle & King County 3. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated February 17,2009 Totaling $506,655.60 4. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated February 12,2009 Totaling $96,404.15 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: Each Commissioner reported on the following subjects. Commissioner Austin: · He and the Port Ludlow Hiking Club toured Old Fort Townsend State Park with the Friends of Old Fort Townsend. · A group of 30 people representing park stakeholders met to discuss the future of parks in the County. · There was a fundraiser for the proposed Equestrian Park this weekend. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23,2009 He reviewed the Puget Sound Partnership's list of action items in Jefferson County and the projected cost is approximately $7 million. Commissioner Sullivan: · There is a group in Kitsap County looking into taking over two State parks that are on the closure list. He is interested in seeing if something like this would be possible at Old Fort Townsend State Park also. He met with tribal representatives regarding the annual canoe journey. They are expecting a big turn out this year and may have to look at other options for camping instead of Memorial Field. Commissioner Johnson: · He spent two days in Olympia last week going to meetings, including Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, Hood Canal Coordinating Council in Silverdale, Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Rural Counties Comittee, WSAC Bylaws Committee, WSAC Legislative Steering, Committee, WSAC Coastal Counties, and a meeting with Representative Lynn Kessler. He is going to Olympia this afternoon to testify on SB5836 which is a proposed bill regarding marine transport facilities for gravel and construction materials in Puget Sound. The House bill on this issue died in Committee. County Administrator Philip Morley: · He attended a meeting with a number of tourism stakeholders who want to develop a unifying theme for outreach and advertising for the City and the County. . . . Certification of Annual Inventory of the Capitalized Assets As of December 31,2008: The County Administrator explained that the inventory of capitalized assets was developed by the Auditor with the help of the Elected Officials and Department Heads who have certified the assets in their departments. The Board has reviewed the information. Auditor Donna Eldridge noted that the Commissioners are the final certifiers of the inventory according to the statute. After it is certified, the original document is kept in the Auditor's Office for public review. Clerk of the Board Lorna Delaney administered the oath to the Board members that they have reviewed and certify that the listing of capitalized assets as of December 31, 2008 as prepared by the County Auditor is a true and correct inventory. Discussion and Possible Approval re: Proposed Ordinance to Increase Department of Community Development Fee Schedule: Philip Morley stated that this is a follow-up to the public hearing that was held last week on the proposed Department of Community Development (DCD) fee ordinance. The increase is being proposed to try to recoup the full costs of building and development review activities. Al Scalf, Community Development Director, reviewed the costs of overhead for the department. With the current economic downturn, the number of applications for permits has decreased. As a result, several employees were laid off in December and the remaining employees' hours were reduced which also impacts the workload. He thinks that a comment made during the hearing about creating and implementing incentive programs for people applying for permits is something that should be taken seriously. The Department recommendation is to approve the ordinance as drafted. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23,2009 The Board asked questions about the apportionment of the department's overhead, the amount of time that is necessary to process certain applications and see them to completion, and the reason that planners have to review certain applications such as fences and decks. Staff gave detailed answers to all the Commissioner's questions. There was a discussion about reviews by planners and building inspectors versus reviews by permit technicians. Staff reviewed the possible number of permits that are required when a person wants to develop their property and build a residence. Al Scalf compared the number of specific permits received over the past several years versus the decrease in the numbers in 2008. Commissioner Austin moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 02-0223-09 adopting a new Department of Community Development fee schedule. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion and Possible Approval of AGREEMENT (2) re: Peer Review Services for Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR) Supplement EIS; 1) ESA Adolfson; and 2) Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort: Al Scalf explained that in 2008, the Board approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment submitted by the Statesman Corporation to designate a conceptional Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR). A programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was done for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Statesman has submitted an application for a development agreement and a zoning code to implement the MPR. Stacie Hoskins, Responsible Official at DCD, has issued a Determination of Significance (DS) which requires an EIS at the project level. She is also requiring peer review of the EIS. The Department went through an RFQ process last summer, received a number of applications, and interviewed five consultant firms. They selected ESA Adolfson as the preferred consultant to do the peer review and the Statesman Corporation has agreed with the choice. After a discussion about the proposed project, Commissioner Austin moved to approve the contract with ESA Adolfson for peer review consultant services for the MPR supplemental EIS. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the contract between the County and Statesman Corporation to ensure that they will pay for ESA Adolfson's services. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Status Briefing re: Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update (MLA08-475) Including Planning Commission Process and Key Public Concerns: County Administrator Philip Morley reported that the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and they are currently incorporating the comments they received to make refinements to the document. They intend to hold another public hearing to take additional testimony on the revisions. In addition, Assessor Jack Westerman will be giving a presentation to the Planning Commission to explain possible property and tax implications that could result from the draft SMP. The SMP update process is mandated under State law. The County must meet certain minimum requirements for State Department of Ecology (DOE) approval. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23,2009 Al Scalf noted that Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins, Associate Planner Michelle McConnell, and Margaret Clancy, lead consultant on the project from ESA Adolfson, have been working on this project for several years. Michelle McConnell reviewed the history of the State-mandated requirement to update the current Shoreline Master Program. This process is a complete and comprehensive update. The County applied for grant funding to do the update in 2005 and the grant agreement with DOE was signed in June, 2006. The goal throughout the process has been to encourage and create a number of opportunities for public involvement. Over forty-five people participated in more than 24 meetings on a technical advisory committee and a policy advisory committee. They helped develop a shoreline inventory and characterization report which is a snapshot of current conditions, and created a restoration plan. Prior to the Planning Commission process, staff held many public events in communities throughout the County. The Planning Commission review was publicly noticed in mid-November, 2008. The preliminary draft SMP was made available to the public on December 3 and the County Commissioners attended a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on that date. There was a 60 day public comment period and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 21. This is a stand alone document that will amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code (UDC). The State DOE will do the final review and the formal adoption process on the SMP. The Planning Commission received 472 comments. There are about 6,200 parcels in the County that will be partially or fully affected by the SMP. Michelle McConnell reviewed some of the comments that people have thought to be true, but are not. These "myths" are as follows: · I can't rebuild my house if it burns down. She said that if an existing home was legally built in the first place and was located within the new buffer, it would be designated as a "non-conforming" structure. There is no requirement that the home would need to be moved. If there is a fire or flood that damages the structure, it can be reconstructed in the same location, in the same configuration if the damage is less than 75% of the replacement value, which is the percentage stated in the WAC. If it exceeds the 75%, commercial or industrial structures would need to rebuild outside the buffer. There is a special provision for single family residential that allows rebuilding within the buffer, in the same location, in the same configuration, if there is no opportunity to relocate outside of the buffer. There is also a shoreline variance permit that could be allowed and would require environmental mitigation. Article 10, section 6 also allows for existing non-conforming homes to be expanded up to 25% without variance or conditional use permits. Commissioner Johnson asked what happens to the foundation if a property owner must build in a new location? Al Scalf replied that they would need to get a demolition permit and remove it. The Commissioner questioned whether this would do more damage? Al Scalf answered that this is part of the demolition permit review. Variance, buffer reduction, and critical areas stewardship plan (CASP) processes were discussed. Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez added that a shoreline variance is sent to the State DOE for final approval. The role that DOE plays throughout the process was reviewed. Chairman Sullivan asked for, and received, clarification from staff on several items listed in the cumulative impacts analysis. He noted that 70% of the shoreline in the County is already developed. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23,2009 . The new buffers are going to make my lot unbuildable. Michelle McConnell explained that there is a standard 150 foot uniform buffer proposed on the marine shorelines, and rivers and streams that fall under the SMP jurisdiction, and a 100 foot uniform buffer on lake shorelines. This is an increase in the setbacks in the existing code. There are approximately 750 parcels that would be non- conforming, or 12% of the affected parcels. There are administrative review processes for buffer reduction and averaging, a common line setback allowance, non-conforming lot standards and the CASP. The shoreline variance is also an option. There are 116 non-conforming lots proposed in the "natural designation." In the current code, single family residential development is prohibited in the natural designation but it would be allowed with a conditional use permit. The DOE makes the final decision on shoreline conditional use permits. Michelle McConnell noted that 20% of the buffer area can be used as active space for water-oriented use and development such as beach stairs, docks, or paths. The new buffers aren't based on science. One of the early phases in the process was a shoreline inventory and characterization report. They reviewed hundreds of scientific and technical documents. Current conditions were noted to set a baseline for the "no net loss" provision set by the State. Chapter 5 discusses the buffers. There is also a State requirement that shoreline protections equal the protections of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The proposed buffers match the buffers in the CAO which was developed after a major review of best available science (BAS). The buffers aren't out ofline with buffers in other jurisdictions, including the City of Port Townsend. The natural shoreline designation being proposed is too broad They used the recommended system from the State WAC that identifies the catagories. There are also purpose and criteria statements. They have proposed a priority aquatic designation in the waterwardarea below ordinary high water mark where there would be two options instead of one as recommended. These areas are designated to provide a higher protection level for salmon, shellfish, eelgrass and kelp. The percentage of shoreline in Eastern Jefferson County in each designation was reviewed. The natural shoreline designation would apply to 41% of the shorelines, based on scientific review. However, this is not a parcel designation. There was a discussion about whether a person can appeal the designation of their property. There is an allowed use table in Article 4. Michelle McConnell added that she thinks there is more flexibility in the proposed SMP. The new shoreline program will allow mining along Hood Canal. Article 8.6 specifically prohibits the commercial or industrial extraction of quarry rock, sand, gravel, and/or cobble along the marine and lake shorelines. Al Scalf added that extraction would be prohibited from the ordinary high water mark upland 200 feet. . . . Chairman Sullivan asked if this includes related mining activities such as the transporting rock and piers? Margaret Clancy replied that the draft SMP details the transport and ancillary activities associated with mining activities. Specific activities are allowed in certain designations. It would require a conditional use permit and a high level of review. Michelle McConnell noted that the large number of comments received on this topic were based on concerns relating to the proposed Pit-to-Pier project which is vested under the existing SMP. Michelle McConnell reviewed the Planning Commission's process to date. The comments have been organized into a matrix and they are currently focusing on the topics of concern. They are meeting weekly. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23,2009 They passed a motion to request a timeline extension from the County Commissioners. The County has a statutory deadline to complete the SMP update and have DOE approve it by December 1,2011. Other obligations include the grant funding contract with DOE which the County entered into on June 12,2006. The deadline for the contract is June 30, 2009 when the funding will sunset. DOE has advised the County that additional grant funding is not available. There is an additional deadline of three years from the date of the contract which stipulates that jurisdictions that receive State funding have a two year time period to complete the project with a possible one year extension. The County has already been granted a one year extension. DCD staff is supporting the Planning Commission in their weekly review to address the issues in the draft SMP and hold another public hearing. However, the Planning Commission has other projects they have to deal with in a timely manner, including the Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area compliance package, the Critical Areas Ordinance appeal, and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The June 12 deadline requires a locally approved SMP to be submitted to the State DOE for final review and approval. After the Planning Commission completes their process and forwards their recommendation to the Board, the Board will review the recommendation and approve the SMP by resolution. It will then be submitted to the State and if the State has revisions, the document will be returned to the County. There would be another public hearing to address any changes and once the County and State are in agreement, the State would give final approval and the County would adopt the SMP by ordinance. The Planning Commission has submitted a letter to the Board requesting a 90 day extension of their part of the process. Al Scalf stated that he has talked to DOE about the request and they seem fairly agreeable to the time. However, they noted that the grant funding sunsets on June 30 and any money that is not expended at that time would no longer be available to the County. The County Administrator recommended that more review of the process be done and that staff will come back to the Board with a combined decision package. He stated that it is important to support the Planning Commission through the remainder of the process. It is also important that the public has accurate information on the impacts of the SMP in order to provide meaningful public input. County Administrator Briefing Session: Commissioner Johnson had an excused absence for the afternoon meeting because he went to Olympia to represent Jefferson County at a State Legislature Committee hearing. Coordinated Tourism Outreach: The County Administrator gave an update on Christina Pivarnik's work to coordinate an umbrella tourism message for Port Townsend and Jefferson County Advisory Board Vacancies: There was a discussion about vacancies on the Tourism Coordinating Council and the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and the process for filling them. Joint City/County Meeting: Possible agenda topics for the March 5 meeting with the Port Townsend City Council were reviewed. The Commissioners discussed direction to staff to dialogue on the UGA and water banking and the PUD's ASR grant project. They also discussed how to pursue a dialogue with the City on a possible Municipal Parks and Recreation District. Budget Update: There was a discussion about approaches for partnering with Elected Officials and Department Directors if budget adjustments become necessary over the course of2009. 4H Club: Commissioner Austin suggested that WSU Extension contact the Olympic Consortium to explore if they have funds to help support 4H in Jefferson County. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23,2009 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 3 :03 p.m. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion which carried. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DaVidU:P. - ATTEST: ~ ~t\1n!MC ~ Clerk of the Board 0 C!f)~ Phil Johnson, Member J~'~ Page 7.