Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091409 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 Sept em her 14,2009 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Sullivan at the appointed time 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 stated the economy continues to deteriorate and local businesses are slow and Real Estate sales are down. It was suggested that the County support statewide projects of significance to keep jobs and to stimulate the economy; a citizen presented a brochure outlining state regulations on fishing; the Quilcene Fair and Parade will be held on September 19th and a concern was expressed that the amount paid for mileage to individuals providing services for the Food Bank is too low; another citizen commented on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Hearing held last week and also urged the Board to stop amending the draft minutes of their proceedings to reflect what the Board thinks was intended to take place, but, rather to approve the minutes that record what actually occurred; a citizen stated that the SMP Hearing was very civil, however, there is just an appearance of public participation in Jefferson County and there needs to be more discussion with the public so the citizens have a better understanding of all the issues being decided by the Board; Civil Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez was complimented by a citizen for his outstanding work on the lawsuit on the MRL designation currently before the Division II Court of Appeals and the Board was urged to visit the Washington Courts website and listen to the audio recording of the case; and a citizen thanked the Board and Community Development stafffor their efforts on the SMP, APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Larry Scott Trail; Temporary Residential Lease; Jefferson County Public Works; Jon and Anita Schmucker 2. AGREEMENT NO. GI000023 re: Northwest Straits Project CZM310 Marine Resources Committee Action and Administration; Jefferson County WSU Extension; Washington State Department of Ecology 3. AGREEMENT re: Open Space Taxation to ReclassifY Approximately 128.95 Acres from Designated Forest Land to Open Space, CUA08-00001; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Pope Resources, Applicant 4. Advisory Board Appointment: Conservation Futures Oversight Committee; Four (4) Year Term Expiring 09/14/2013; Fred Weinmannd 5. Advisory Board Appointment: Climate Action Committee; Deborah Stinson (Replacing Port Townsend Paper Representative Kristin Marshall) 6. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated September 4,2009 Totaling $724,788.01 and Dated August 8, 2009 Totaling $931.37 and AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated August 4, 2009 Totaling $558,397.56 and Dated August 8, 2009 Totaling $292.64 Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14,2009 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners and the County Administrator each reported as follows: Commissioner Austin: . Advertising videos encouraging visitors to come to Port Townsend are playing on the local ferry to promote tourism which is good for the economy . He has a teleconference scheduled with Representative Norm Dicks to follow-up on the discussion to transfer the Hoh River Road from the jurisdiction of Jefferson County to the Federal Government . An error on the Jefferson Transit route map has been corrected to prevent confusion. In spite of rumors, route 7 will continue to serve the Port Ludlow area Commissioner Sullivan: . Meetings this week: Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO); Jefferson Transit; Health Board; Olympia Area Agency on Aging (03A) Audit meeting; and WRIA 17 Commissioner Johnson: . He will be attending a NW Marine Sanctuary meeting this week . The Wooden Boat Festival brought many visitors to Port Townsend this past weekend which is good for the economy County Administrator Philip Morley: . During the Wooden Boat Festival the County offered parking at Memorial Field for a fee which raised approximately $6,500 . Jefferson County Parks and Recreation has launched its soccer league program which is serving over 300 youth this year . A portion of the Gardiner area in Jefferson County Fire District #5 has been transferred to Clallam County Fire District #3, however, during this transition, E-911 calls are still being handled by JEFFCOM which will dispatch Sheriff calls to the Jefferson County Sheriffs office and will dispatch fire and aid calls to Jefferson County Fire Distirct #5 and also route them to PENCOM who will dispatch Clallam County Fire District #3 . Contracts for the grant funded provision of Marine Resources Committee services will be brought to the Board for consideration in the next couple of weeks Update on Project of Statewide Significance Nomination Request by Fred Hill Materials: County Administrator Philip Morley reported that on June 17,2009 Fred Hill Materials submitted a request that the County nominate the Pit-to-Pier project for designation by the Washington Department of Commerce as a "Project of Statewide Significance." Community Development staff researched and prepared an analysis of the criteria for qualifying projects as well as the impacts or obligations this type of designation may have on the County and whether there are other projects in Jefferson County which might qualify for this type of designation. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 He presented a copy of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5473 which was adopted during the last legislative session. ESSB 5473 amended RCW 43.157 which originally governed industrial projects of statewide significance. With the adoption ofESSB 5473 projects of statewide significance are no longer limited to industrial projects. Two additional categories for projects which can now be considered for this designation include environmental improvement and commercialization of innovations. The legislation also amended the capital investment requirement. For Coooties with a population between 20,000 and 50,000 the amooot of the capital investment threshold was lowered from $50 million to $10 million in order to qualify. The requirement of local officials to participate in a project team of state and private interests was also clarified. In addition, development project proponents are allowed to fund governmental professional staff to expedite permit review. The purpose of designating a project of statewide significance is to expedite and better coordinate both local and state permit review. Under the RCW 43.157 as amended, the Board has complete discretion whether or not to nominate a project regardless of whether it meets all the criteria to make it eligible for nomination. Community Development staff was not asked for any recommendation on whether or not to nominate the project. The following recommendation is that of County Administrator Philip Morley and is independent of any advice from others. Philip Morley stated that there are some questions on the eligibility of the Pit-to-Pier project. Specifically, one of the thresholds for nomination of a private manufacturing or industrial project in a coooty of our size, is that it will create a minimum of 50 new jobs. The original permit application submitted by Fred Hill Materials for review by the County indicates that the project would create 30 permanent jobs. It may be that there is supplemental information, but, Coooty staff has not yet seen that documentation. Chairman Sullivan asked if 50 jobs are required to be in Jefferson Coooty and whether it includes spin-off jobs? Philip Morley answered that the legislation is not specific on whether or not the jobs must be in Jefferson Coooty and it is his interpretation that they must be direct jobs and not spin-off jobs. Philip Morley explained that per RCW 43.157.020 the County would be required to enter into an agreement with the State Office of Regulatory Assistance and also with the proponents. The County would also be required to hire and dedicate professional staff to expedite the review of a project of statewide significance and local officials would be required to work on the state team. Local processing of streets, right-of-way, and easement vacations would also have to be expedited. At current staffing levels this would be a burden on the Coooty. Additional staff could be hired, but, managing additional staff and managing and coordinating the project and participating in a required statewide committee would place additional burdens on the Coooty which he does not recommend at this time. Expediting permit review requires local stafftime and impacts funding which the County cannot afford. Under the law, Fred Hill Materials may provide the necessary fooding for the County's expedited review, however, Fred Hill Materials is currently fooding the environmental impact study for existing County applications and throughout the course of this year the County has had to carry a substantial balance on those expenditures since compensation and repayment has not always been prompt. He is not prepared to recommend that the Coooty carry that practice forward. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 In addition, advocacy is not necessarily needed in the case of this project. The project is already getting strong County staff support. Associate Planner-Lead Michelle Farfan is present today and has been dedicated significantly to this project. He does not believe there have been significant delays in the permit processing at the local or state level. The lines of communication are open and effective. There is little evidence that this project is currently being delayed such that it would require expediting. In conclusion he reviewed Community Development's analysis of how the state views a project of statewide significance nomination by the County. "... Community Development staff contacted the State Department of Commerce on July 16, 2009 and as of that date no projects had been submitted to be designated as a project of statewide significance. The Department of Commerce does not believe an applicant must wait until the rules are established since ESSB 5473 has emergency provisions. The Department of Commerce staffbelieves the intent of the Bill is to expedite projects with local support that may be having difficulty with state and federal processes. A letter of approval from Jefferson County would need to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and shall state that the jurisdiction joins in the request for the designation of the project as a project of statewide significance and hire the professional staff that will be required to expedite the process necessary to complete the project of statewide significance. The Department of Commerce cannot review a proposal without a letter from the local jurisdiction. In communication with the Department of Commerce staff on July 16, 2009, the Department of Commerce interprets the letter of approval to mean that the local jurisdiction joins the applicant and is in essence a co-applicant to the project. ... " There is a potential risk in nominating a project because in doing so, it is not simply for expedition, but, is also interpreted as co-applicant and also advocacy. A concern for a project such as this is that the designation of the term "project of statewide significance" carries with it a presumption of "this has got to happen". With the issues that are still under review, the County will want to make sure that it is not in any subtle way tipping the scales of how the project is reviewed for its potential impacts on Hood Canal species, habitat and water quality. The impact, if any, to the Hood Canal Bridge operations or to U.S. Navy operations. Nominating a project of statewide significance is rare and there have not been any nominations statewide in recent years. Jefferson County has other projects such as the Port Hadlock Wastewater System and the Brinnon Master Planned Resort that may qualify in the future for this kind of nomination. He proposes the Board take no action on this request at this time. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Deliberations: Community Development Director Al Scalf, Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins and Long Range Planner Lead Michelle McConnell were present for the deliberations on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Al Scalf explained that the Planning Commission's recommended draft SMP is currently before the Board for consideration along with comments and recommended changes from the public and Department of Community Development (DCD) staff. He suggests the Board seek legal counsel prior to taking action as there are very serious legal ramifications to our community coming from the state through the legislative body and directing through guidelines and legislative statutory amendments that the County shall implement the new Shoreline Management Act locally. Due to the significant legal consequences, he anticipates a legal challenge. Five options were presented to the Commissioners to determine the order in which they will deliberate. Option one: As a starting point DCD staff can review and provide the legal context of the Planning Commission, Shoreline Advisory Board, Growth Management Act Statute 36.70a, Shoreline Management Act Statute 90.58, Planning Enabling Act and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. They can also discuss the Jefferson County Code and how it directs the process to amend implementing regulations. Option two: Review page by page each article of the Planning Commission's final SMP draft. Interchange with staff and review public comment letters and DCD staff recommendations. Option three: Direct DCD staff to make changes to Planning Commission's final SMP draft in preparation for local approval by the Board. That would be done by a motion of the Board to incorporate any changes they want made based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, public comment letters, DCD's staff recommendation and other elements discovered while reviewing the record during deliberations in the public arena. Option four: Question and answer session. Option five: Why at all? Why now? Why this way? In terms of the time line, staff recommends that the Board begin with a question and answer session during the deliberations being held today. Next Monday, September 21, 2009 the Board can begin reviewing each article of the SMP with DCD staff. On Monday, September 28,2009 the Board would direct staff to prepare the final SMP document. Michelle McConnell stated that staff has reviewed all of the written public comments and prepared a list of them in a summary table which have been numbered for the purpose of keeping the Growth Management Act record. Approximately 290 written comments were received and they will be scanned electronically and made available on the County's website. The Board agreed that option five can be eliminated. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 !J"'" l."\ \'Hr:<"~" Chairman Sullivan noted the public concern that shoreline property owners were not invited to participate on the Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC) and the Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee (ST AC). Al Scalf replied that the SP AC and ST AC was a concept developed by staff in an effort to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements to engage frequent public participation prior to the SMP being drafted and taken to the Planning Commission. Michelle McConnell added that the SP AC had a core of citizen representatives of various fields such as aquaculture and the building industry, In addition to the core citizen representatives there were also governmental agency representatives and tribal representatives. The STAC was formed based on diversity of technical expertise and not specifically based on representation of any particular organization. Staff is aware that there has been repeated concern expressed that there were no shoreline property owners involved on the committees, however, that is not true. There were actually four members between the two committees who are shoreline property owners. One of shoreline property owners on the SP AC filled the position titled "Recent Shoreline Permitee" because that individual had recently gone through the shoreline permitting process. In addition to those four members, there was representation for Realtors which stafffelt would consider the interest of shoreline property owners as well. Staff attempted to have broad and diverse representation on the committees and many people were invited to participate. Al Scalf informed the Board that Stacie Hoskins keeps a docket when staff is reviewing projects where the code is inconsistent or contradictory. Staff is very aware of the changes from the old SMP regulations versus the new guidelines. Staffis sensitive to the public's interest, the cost to applicants, the review process, permit timelines and resource management. Equally, they are concerned about local and state decision making. Commissioner Johnson asked what constitutes an Indian individual as noted on page 1-3? A1 Scalf responded that the Quinault Reservation and the Hoh Reservation are separate nations and distinct lands which are not subject to the SMP. A tribal member living outside oftribal nation lands would be subject to the SMP. Chairman Sullivan read that it states: "... shall not apply to lands held in trust by the United States for ..." Al Scalf explained that tribal nation lands are held in common for the tribes by the Federal Bureau of Land Management. However, there are 25 parcels known as "inho1dings" that are located within the Quinault Indian Nation Reservation that are taxed and regulated by Jefferson County. Inho1dings are lands within a tribal reservation that are owned by non-tribal members. Commissioner Austin asked if staff has corrected the pagination errors and reference problems in the SMP that were noted during the September 2, 2009 meeting, and if not, how those corrections will be handled? Michelle McConnell replied that staff has not yet addressed making any changes to the document as they are waiting for actual direction from the Board to make changes. As a matter of process, Philip Morley explained that the intent is for the Commissioners to deliberate and discuss the technical and substantive changes they want made and then staff will make the changes one time at the end ofthe process. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 A1 Scalf assured the Board that the issues brought up at the SMP meeting held on September 2, 2009 have been noted by staff who will make those changes when directed by the Board. He noted that staff will need a month to make the Board's changes to the SMP document, however, no changes have been made to any documents being reviewed by the Board at this time. Philip Morley outlined the process which will include keeping a list of changes that staff will be directed by the Board to make at the end of their deliberations. He asked when staff would like to have the direction from the Board to prepare the final SMP document? Michelle McConnell explained that deliberations are scheduled today and on Monday, September 21 ,j and Monday, September 28th. Staff would like to have the Board's direction to prepare the document on September 28th after deliberations are complete. The timeline only gives the Board two meetings to deliberate and make a final decision. Philip Morley asked if there is any flexibility with the September 28th deadline? Michelle McConnell replied the schedule is already very tight in order to meet the deadline for submitting the SMP to the State by October 30, 2009. Local approval of the SMP by the Board is scheduled for Monday, October 12, 2009. After that, staff will have approximately two weeks to prepare the entire packet to be submitted to the State which will include not only the SMP, but, also the cumulative impact analysis and a completed checklist showing that all the State requirements have been met. There is a lot of detail work that must be completed within this tight time1ine. Chairman Sullivan asked if staff could discuss general topics that are common themes in the comment letters such as non-conforming lots and shoreline substantial development permits? Al Scalf replied that two sections of the SMP deal with non-conforming lots. Specifically, article 6-6 refers to buffers and setbacks and article 10-6 refers to non-conforming development. Chairman Sullivan questioned how issues such as master planned resorts and Assessor's plats of record should be handled in terms of workload and impact on staff? Al Scalf responded that staff will be preparing new language for the section on master planned resorts and plats to be more inclusive of plats countywide. Stacie Hoskins added that parcels are vested under shoreline setbacks identified in plats even though that is not stated in the County Code. During this public process staff has seen that there is a desire to have that spelled out in the County Code and they are prepared to refine that language if the Board gives them that direction. Refining that language would give a legal basis for honoring plats universally throughout the County, stated A1 Scalf. Michelle McConnell discussed page 6-5 ofthe SMP dealing with non-conforming lots which states when a lot does not have the depth to accommodate the standard buffer then there is a series of criteria that if met, would allow for a single-family residence to be built on a non-conforming lot. There is also the common line setback which staff has recommended be called the common line buffer as the buffer width would be adjusted rather than the setback. It is another prescriptive approach that staff recommends be a mathematical calculation when needed, rather than it just being a line drawn between two nearby objects. This will insure protection of the ordinary high watermark area. Other options available to all shoreline Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 property owners and not just those with non-conforming lots, include buffer reduction, buffer averaging, the critical areas stewardship plan and shoreline variance. Chairman Sullivan stated that many people said that they do not want a "one-size fits all" program and it appears that this fits individual lot situations as well property as a "whole". A1 Scalf noted that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) will scrutinize the sections dealing with non- conforming lots when they hold their hearing on the SMP submitted by the County. Commissioner Austin asked if staff s recommended changes to the Planning Commission's SMP were made with ultimate approval by the DOE in mind? Al Scalf answered no. This document is dominated by staff and consultant work with a little input by DOE. Staff does not know how the DOE will deal with the question of what is a legal lot and what can be done. He is not certain if DOE agrees with honoring plats. The public comment received in June from DOE indicates they like the idea of lot consolidation. He disagrees with the DOE on lot consolidation. There is a pattern of development and GMA is prospective not retroactive. He doesn't think we have to replat the County. We need to accept what we have and move forward with good planning. Michelle McConnell noted that one of the criteria for single-family residential development of nonconforming lots without a variance is lot consolidation as shown in section VII on page 6-6. Al Scalf commented on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The Planning Commission recommends allowing ADUs on parcels with a natural designation and staff recommends ADU's not be allowed on those parcels. Staffs recommendation is based on a number of factors including habitat, water quality, fecal coliform, nitrogen, phosphorus and other elements that are within that range. Obviously, deforestation is creating an impact. ADUs are allowed to be 1,250 sq. ft. in size. Setbacks, impervious surface and many other variables add up to development pressure on the land. In rural areas more significant setbacks would be needed to preserve corridors and protect wildlife habitat. Most of the restrictions of the County Code are written at the lowest levels. There is a side setback of 5 feet. Several people believe the setback should be larger in rural zones, but, there are many substandard lots in the County with regard to density. Many concerns were expressed by individuals who live close to the water. He understands their concern, because this program will not allow structures to be built over water and it will be prohibitive to build close to the water. Michelle McConnell stated that some of staff's recommended changes to the Planning Commission's SMP are more protective based on guidance from the State to minimize the degree of non-conformity. The expansion and enlargement of existing non-conforming structures needs to have some level of control in order to be compliant. The Planning Commission's SMP allows ADUs to be conditionally approved in a natural designation. Natural designation is described in item 3 on page 8-24 as residential development consisting of one single-family residence per existing legal lot of record and may be allowed as a conditional use. Staff recommends adding language to prohibit the construction of an ADU in those areas. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14,2009 Chairman Sullivan stated that he needs to review all the documents and comments further before he is ready to go through the issues page by page. He thinks more time will need to be scheduled for deliberations. Commissioner Johnson agreed, stating that it will take more than the time currently scheduled during the next two Monday's to get through all the information. He also questioned the terms "preference and preferred" which are used in SMP document and asked how those terms will be implemented in this regulatory document. Saying that something is preferred or is a preference does not seem enforceable. Stacie Hoskins stated that, in general, the term "preferred" does not mean "required". That term is used mainly in the sections dealing with variances and conditional use permits for the purpose of mitigation. The Board agreed to review it further as it is a term used more for policies rather than regulations. Commissioner Austin asked if staff was referring to the Civil Deputy Prosecutor when they suggested the Board get a legal analysis before making decisions? Al Scalf answered yes. He would like Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez to be present for the Board's deliberations if possible. Ifnot, the Board could meet separately with Mr. Alvarez after questions have been identified. The Board identified some areas of concern that they would like to discuss: natural vegetation versus non- native vegetation; language terms such as preferred; criteria for public/private beach access; and definitions such as abandoned, bluff and structure. Staff from E.S.A. Adolfson consulting and from the DOE have offered to attend the Board's deliberations on the SMP as resources if needed. The County would not be paying for the consultant's time as it was offered gratis in an effort to complete this work. Once the Board approves the SMP it will go to the DOE for review and a public hearing. If DOE makes changes to the SMP, staff recommends that the Board hold another public hearing prior to its adoption of the revised SMP. Commissioner Austin asked about the public comments submitted by the State Parks and expressed concern about the timing ofthe comments and whether or not the State Park's plans will conflict with designations outlined in the SMP. Philip Morley discussed structuring the process. Effectively, there are two weeks to complete deliberations. Staff is working to refine language to recognize plats, broaden language, and address issues relating to mooring buoys and shellfish harvesting. New language will need to be brought to the Board for review prior to October 12, 2009 when a final decision must be made. As much time as possible needs to be scheduled on September 21" and 28th which may include working into the evening. The Board may also want to schedule a special meeting for continued SMP deliberations later next week. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 14, 2009 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Commissioners: . Schedule Coordination . Budget Updates . Miscellaneous Items Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Deliberation Schedule: Commissioner Johnson moved to schedule a Special Meeting to be held Wednesday, September 23,2009 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers for deliberations on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 3: 14 p.m. until the next regular Monday meeting at 9:00 a.m. or special meeting as properly noticed pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. . .. , . _,It I . - II 'J ..,} '.'.. '".. ...,....':! . . 'IYI ~~'. ."~1~~ A TTEST:''I/i!~f$W 0'~ .~I C" f ,).,. I _ ,." " .,'.., ,/ i '-<11'-/ . 1 1.-"L-& . ic.:>'-..-- bin Lundgren, Depu y ,J Clerk ofthe Board SE . ';" q . , t, . , JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD q1; COMMISSIONERS ~. / /l~' ,.~~~ 'r~ D>vi S"Uml", Jim Page 10