Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092109 ~~ coMAtlrn~ ~~-a~~, S7&~ o(/.\ &/4, :\ ~ I,;:: ~~!.....:) \ ' \~ -?:;/ ~N#/ District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Snllivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Anstin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of Septemher 21, 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 questioned the County's rationale and scope of work for the consultant agreement with Anne Sears & Associates which is scheduled for approval on the consent agenda (item #1); a citizen stated he feels the County should offer more funding to support the 4-H Program instead of wasting its resources on lawsuits and he questioned the need for Long Range Planning; another citizen commented on the impact the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will have on properties and how the resignation of the JEFFCOM director has impacted the workload of the Sheriff. 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. I. AGREEMENT reo Professional Services Agreement for 2010 Budget Preparation; Jefferson County Jeff Com; Anne Sears & Associates 2. AGREEMENT NO. C14950, Amendment No. 17 reo 2007-2011 Consolidated Contract; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 3, AGREEMENT reo Consolidated Contract; Knotweed Control on Hoh River; WSU Extension; I 0,000 Years Institute 4. AGREEMENT reo Perform Continuous Testing for Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff and Jefferson County Corrections Officer; Jefferson County Civil Service Commission; Public Safety Testing.Com 5. Advisory Board Resignation; Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; Chris Hansen 6. Advisory Board Resignation: Jefferson County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Kalaloch Lodge Representative; Jamie Hodgson 7. Advisory Board Appointment: Jefferson County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Kalaloch Lodge Representative; Unexpired Three (3) Year Term Expiring July 23,2010; Amanda Lovelady 8. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated September 9, 2009 Totaling $7,447.08 and Dated September 14, 2009 Totaling $1,567,498.13 and Dated September 15, 2009 Totaling $4,520.20 and Dated September 16, 2009 Totaling $132,500.00 9. Payment of Jefferson County AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated September 15,2009 Totaling $111,850.47 Page I Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21,2009 ;~''"''\ t_ -"T- '" ~"N,~,,;~ COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners and the County Administrator each reported as follows: Commissioner Austin: . The County is making progress on the transfer ofthe Hoh River Road to the Federal Government. Public Works Engineer Monte Reinders did a terrific job in providing information which was also expressly noted by Representative Norm Dicks. . Later this week he will be attending a Mental Health Chemical Dependancy Sales Tax Conference in Ellensburg where he will be participating in a presentation to representatives from other Counties. . Nominations for Annual Awards for Conservation Efforts are currently being accepted. Commissioner Johnson: . The Center for Historic Preservation is moving forward with a goal of offering classes on building styles, ornamental plaster, pressed tin and slate roof replacement. Commissioner Sullivan: . He will be attending a Peninsula Development District meeting in Blyn on Thursday. . The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization is a very effective group for lobbying transportation issues and is being used as a model for organizing other regional lobbying groups. County Administrator Philip Morley: . The agreement with Anne Sears & Associates is being funded by JEFFCOM and is needed as a result of the recent resignations of both the JEFF COM Director and Administrative Assistant for that department. The scope of services includes preparation of the 20 I 0 JEFFCOM budget as well as multi-year financial modeling that includes planning for the maintenance and replacement costs of the assets currently listed on the physical inventory. . He explained how the Department of Community Development functions under growth management planning and stated that long range planning is considered a general government activity which benefits the public and therefore is not funded by permit fees, but rather by the General Fund. Letter to American Legion Commander Joe Kerry: Commissioner Austin moved to have staff draft a letter for the Board to sign congratulating American Legion Commander Joe Kerry for his efforts in raising funding to pay for the replacement of the roof on the American Legion building. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion Regarding Housing Action Plan - City and County Properties Inventory: Department of Community Development (DCD) Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins reported that state law and the County/City Housing Action Plan require that counties and cities compile and maintain an inventory of properties which would be suitable for affordable housing projects. County and City staff have compiled a list of City owned and County owned property located within the City that are suitable for this purpose. Two potential County properties which have been identified are the Castle Hill complex near QFC and property located adjacent to Laurel Grove Cemetery. Adding these properties to the inventory does not obligate the County to sell them. It simply provides an opportunity for the County to distribute the list so that individuals may come forward with concepts. The County is still the owner of these properties and has Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 the authority to negotiate any project, keeping in mind that County offices are located within the Castle Hill Complex and alternative accommodations would need to be considered if the use of that property was to be changed. The Board is being asked to direct staff to prepare a resolution for the adoption of the property inventory for affordable housing. The Board also has the option to determine if staff should pursue a grant to retain a qualified consultant and/or distribute the affordable lands inventory to housing providers and invite them to partner with the County and City. Due to limited resources, staff does not recommend pursuing a grant to retain a consultant at this time. However, because affordable housing requires specific expertise, it is recommended that the Board proceed with authorizing the distribution of the affordable lands inventory to housing providers. Commissioner Johnson asked how the County would be able to transfer land without going through a bid process? Stacie Hoskins replied that RCW 36.34.135 provides for the leasing of County property. Specifically, it states "If a county owns property that is located anywhere within the county, including within the limits of city of town, and that is suitable for affordable housing, the legislative authority of the county may, by negotiation, lease the property for affordable housing for a term not to exceed seventy-five years to any public housing authority or nonprofit organization that has demonstrated its ability to construct or operate housing for very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income households as defined in RCW 43.63A510 and special needs populations..." Commissioner Austin asked for confirmation that the area of the property that includes the historical County Cemetery known as Laurel Grove would not be included in the inventory? Stacie Hoskins answered that the documentation specifically excludes the southern 1/3 portion of the property where the cemetery is located. Commissioner Austin asked if the inventory would include the vacant lots that are located adjacent to the Castle Hill complex which is currently occupied by DCD and Public Health? Stacie Hoskins answered yes. The proposal includes three parcels which is all of the County owned land in the Castle Hill area. Commissioner Austin expressed concern about staff being evicted and asked how that is being addressed with the establishment of this list? Stacie Hoskins replied that anyone who comes forward with a proposal would need to accommodate County offices or there would need to be an in depth discussion with the Board about finding other locations for those County offices. Philip Morley explained that the County is not prepared at this point in time to say that the Castle Hill property is no longer required for its purposes and is suitable for development of affordable housing. Language to that effect would also be included in the resolution so it is clear. The property is being placed on the inventory list in the spirit of being open to considering and negotiating a proposal to see if there is a way to accommodate affordable housing as well as the County's ongoing operational needs either there or elsewhere. It is an option, but, not necessarily a simple one. The action being requested by the Board is simply to establish the inventory. Al Scalf advised that discussion of projects would occur at some point in the future. The property is owned by the County and a final decision to participate in any project rests with the Board. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21,2009 Stacie Hoskins noted that the establishment of the inventory list is being done jointly with the City of Port Townsend. City staffwill be presenting the same inventory list to the Port Townsend City Council for consideration at tonight's meeting. Commissioner Johnson moved to direct staffto prepare a resolution to adopt the Housing Action Plan property inventory for affordable housing with the understanding that the southern 1/3 portion of the County property at Laurel Grove Cemetery is excluded, and that any projects proposed for the County property at Castle Hill would require substantial discussion to address the placement of County offices currently occupying that property. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Austin moved to direct staff to distribute the affordable lands inventory to housing providers and invite them to partner with the County and City. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Deliberations: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Al Scalf, Plarming Manager Stacie Hoskins and Long Range Planning Lead Michelle McConnell were present to assist the Board with deliberations on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Department of Ecology representative Jeffree Stewart was also present to observe the Board's deliberations. E.S.A. Adolfson Consultant Margaret Clancy will be attending the deliberations this afternoon. Ms. Clancy is no longer on contract with the County and has volunteered to offer her services if needed in an effort to complete this project. Michelle McConnell explained that staff has prepared a spreadsheet titled SMP Issues "Pick List" which reflects changes the Board has requested during their meetings held on September 2 and 14,2009. Staffwill update this list with any changes the Board requests throughout the deliberations. The changes on the Pick List have not been incorporated into the SMP document. Staff anticipates making all of the changes at one time after the deliberations have been concluded and when clear direction to make the changes has been given by the Board. In terms of process, the Board will be reviewing the Plarming Commission's proposed SMP draft with the line-inlline-out changes recommended by DCD. The Board also agreed to review the maps, tables and Article 2. Definitions, after reviewing all the other articles. Michelle McConnell then began the review of the SMP. ARTICLE 1 - INTRODUCTION Pal!:e 1-2. Title 2 Auulicabilitv Section D. subsection 2 Commissioner Johnson suggested rather than listing to whom the program applies, the entire paragraph could be changed to read "Every application for development or use on any shoreline that Jefferson County has jurisdiction over." This way it would cover everyone. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 Michelle McConnell explained that it was drafted to include who it applies to so no one would think they were exempt. Commissioner Johnson said that the program applies to applications more than individuals. Chairman Sullivan added that individuals have to comply with the SMP even if they don't need to make any type of application. Michelle McConnell noted that the SMP regulates both shoreline development and shoreline uses. The Board agreed that Section D, Subsection 2 and Section F will remain unchanged. Pal!:e 1-3. Title 3 Governinl!: Princiules of the Master Prol!:ram Section F Chairman Sullivan stated a comment letter was received suggesting the word "coordinated" be changed to "consistent". Stacie Hoskins pointed out that the SMP is updating the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC). Therefore, policies included in the SMP are not just intended to be consistent with those documents, but, are actually updating those documents. The Board agreed that the word "coordinated" will remain unchanged. Pal!:e 1-4. Title 6 Critical Areas Rel!:ulations Adouted bv Reference Section A Chairman Sullivan stated Jim Tracy submitted a comment letter with concerns about the language in this section conflicting with the language on Page 1-3, Title 3. Governing Principals of this Master Program Section F. Chairman Sullivan does not see a conflict and asked staff if they have any concerns about it. Michelle McConnell thinks the general concern is the ongoing interest in the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act (SMA) integration and the legal issues ofthose separate governing statutes. She recently sent an e-mail to the Board and other interested parties regarding a court of appeals case on that issue. Staff does not see any conflict between the two sections, however, they will get an opinion from the Deputy Prosecutor. The Board will revisit this issue after staff has consulted with the Deputy Prosecutor. Commissioner Johnson asked about subsection 3. Governing Principles of the Master Program. The entire section discusses principles, policies, goals and regulations. What is a principle? Subsection G includes words such require and shall. Principles are not regulations. Are they closer to policies? Michelle McConnell explained that the SMP was written and constructed based on the existing Shoreline Program which is incorporated into the UDC under 18.25. Citizens, consultants and staff began updating the SMP in 2007 and since that time have been working to insure that it meets State guidelines in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173.26. Principles are more broad scale concepts of the RCW and SMA. Those principles are further clarified as guidelines in the WAC. These various terms are also used in the Comp Plan and the UDC. The word "goal" is the broadest term used. Goals are used to develop policies which help to provide more specific direction. From policies come the creation of implementing regulations. Policies include words such as "should" to give guidance and direction. Regulations include words like "shall" which are used for enforcement. The SMP document was constructed so it begins more broad in the beginning and then becomes more specific as the articles progress. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 Commissioner Johnson asked why regulatory terms such as "require" and "shall" are used in the article describing "principles"? Stacie Hoskins stated staff was concentrating on attempting to meet the State law. Commissioner Austin suggested adding definitions for the words principle, policy and regulation to Article 2. Definitions. Michelle McConnell noted that item #8 on the pick list is to add definitions for the words policy and regulation. A definition for principle can be added as well. The Board agreed to add definitions for the words principle, policy and regulation to Article 2. Definitions. ARTICLE 2 - DEFINITIONS The Board will review later. ARTICLE 3 - MASTER PROGRAM GOALS Pal!:e 3-2. Title 4 (incorrectlv noted as 12) Public Access Section B. subsection 1 The Board agreed with DCD's recommendation to remove the word "major". Pal!:e 3-5. Title 7 (incorrectly noted as 15) Shoreline Use Section B Michelle McConnell noted that DCD is recommending to add subsection 3 with the following language "Encourage appropriate low impact development practices and cluster development whenever feasible." She suggested the Board review the language in this new subsection. The Board agreed to change DCD's recommended language for subsection 3 so that it reads "Encourage appronriate sustainable, low- impact and cluster development practices whenever feasible." This will increase the number of subsections to 10. Subsection 8 (oreviously 7) After discussing how broad or specific the language in this section on goals needs to be, the Board agreed to strike the words "...such as aquaculture." from the end of the sentence, so this subsection will read "Reserve aquatic lands including tidelands for water-dependent uses." Subsection 10 (ureviously 9) The Board agreed with DCD's recommendation to strike the language "Implement measures to counter effects from potential rise in sea level to those developments proposed for no bank and low bank marine shoreline parcels." and replace it with "Encourage all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise." Pal!:e 3-5. Title 8 (incorrectlv noted as 16) Transoortation. Utilities and Essential Public Facilities Subsections 1 and 5 Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification of these goals. Michelle McConnell explained that these goals were put into the program as required by State statute. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21,2009 ;!J""' '\ +, . .~.' .. 1,. ':.'~" HJN" ARTICLE 4 - SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATIONS Pal!:es 4-1 and 4-2. Title 1 Shoreline Jurisdiction and MaDUinl!: Section A (incorrectlv noted as C) Chairman Sullivan noted that Jim Tracy suggests in his comment letter that the County strike either "saltwater shorelines" or "shorelines of statewide significance" as those terms are redundant and potentially confusing. Mr. Tracy feels public understanding is most assured by striking "shorelines of statewide significance". Michelle McConnell explained the official terminology as follows: The term "shorelines of the state" includes all shorelines, while the terms "shorelines of statewide significance", "shorelines" and "shorelands" are a subset thereof. Not all portions of shorelines of the state are considered "shorelines of statewide significance" except below extreme low tide. The Board agreed that Section C is more clear the way it is currently written. No change was made. Section E lincorrectlv noted as G). subsection 4 Reads "Whenever existing physical features are inconsistent with boundaries on the official Shoreline Map, the Administrator shall interpret the boundaries. Appeals of such interpretations may be filed pursuant to the applicable appeal procedures described in Article 10." Chairman Sullivan discussed a comment letter which says that "Shoreline maps are either jurisdictional or they are not. In the case of conflict between the map and actual physical conditions no interpretation is necessary. Actual conditions should govern the application of the SMP." He suggested adding the following language to the end of the first sentence "with deference to actual conditions." The Board agreed to change the first sentence to read "Whenever existing ohvsical features are inconsistent with boundaries on the official Shoreline MaD. the Administrator shall interpret the boundaries with deference to actual conditions." Title 2 (incorrectlv noted as 17) Shoreline Environmental Desil!:nations - Puruose and Criteria Section B. subsection 6 Reads "Public demand for state-owned wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and public access and recreational activities." Chairman Sullivan noted that a comment letter was received stating that this subsection is vague, ambiguous and inconsistent with shoreline definitions. Michelle McConnell explained that this subsection partially reflects one of the tables in the shoreline inventory characterization which graphically lays out the various kinds of conditions and factors considered in proposing the shoreline designation for each reach. The Board agreed that subsection 6 will remain unchanged. Title 3 (incorrectlv noted as 18) Uses Allowed in each Shoreline Environmental Desil!:nation the Board agreed to accepts DCD's changes. The tables included in Article 4 will be reviewed by the Board later. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 '!J""O'., ;.... ......:....~. '\i. .,-- c'''' ''''~''~ ARTICLE 5 - SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE Pal!:e 5-2. Title 3 (incorrectlv noted as 20) Use Preference Commissioner Johnson asked if this section is required by the State? Michelle McConnell answered yes. Section A. subsection 2 Commissioner Sullivan asked how the County assures that state and federal resource agencies, co-managers and tribes are consulted for development proposals as required by this section? Stacie Hoskins replied that DCD sends out letters and copies of all development permit applications to interested parties or affected agencies which gives them the opportunity to comment within 14 days. ARTICLE 6 - GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Pal!:e 6-1 throul!:h 6-11 . Title 1 Critical Areas. Shoreline Buffers. and Ecolol!:ical Protection Section A (incorrectlv noted as B) Subsection 1 Chairman Sullivan noted that DCD added language in response to a comment letter received from Barbara Moore-Lewis. The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to add language to read "... Use and development in areas that are ecologicallv valuable. hazardous. and/or possess rare or fragile natural features should be discouraged." Subsection 2 The Board agreed to change the word "shall" to the word "should", New subsection 3 Michelle McConnell stated that DCD had initially recommended to add Subsection 3 to read "The County should recognize and honor buffers and setbacks established by assessor plats and development agreements for Master Plarmed Resorts." Discussion ensued regarding buffers and different types of plats. Chairman Sullivan stated a comment letter was received from Dale Wilde and family expressing concern that this statement should be true for every legal lot in the County. Stacie Hoskins explained that there would not be a recorded document showing established shoreline setbacks for lots that are not part of a plat. The only other method to document an established shoreline setback for an individual parcel is through a Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SP AAD) which is vesting for a period of five years from the date of issuance, or through a Binding Site Plan which is not typically done for individual parcels. After further discussion the Board agreed to change the language recommended by DCD for the new subsection 3 so that it reads "The County should recognize and honor buffers and setbacks established bv existing plats and development agreements that are consistent with RCW 36.70(B)," This will increase the number of subsections to 5. The Board also agreed to add a definition for the terms "Development Agreement" and "Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD)" to Article 2. Definitions. Section B (incorrectlv noted as C). subsection 8 Reads "Land that is constrained by critical areas and/or buffers shall not be subdivided to create parcels that are only buildable through a shoreline variance." Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 Chairman Sullivan stated that a comment letter was received from Barbara Moore-Lewis suggesting to add language "or would be considered non-conforming with respect to buffers". The Board agreed to add that language. Section C (incorrectlv noted as D). subsection 3 Under this subsection DCD is recommending the following addition "ii. Reasonablv foreseeable future use and development of the shoreline; and." The Board expressed concerns about the term "Reasonably foreseeable future use" and questioned the County's ability to enforce this regulation. Margaret Clancy stated that there is statutory language in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that refers to the term "Reasonably foreseeable future use". She realizes this language seems vague, but, there are limits and guidance in a planning context available from the Department of Ecology (DOE) and other environmental laws. The Board agreed to accept the language added to this subsection as recommended by DCD and to add a defmition for "Reasonably foreseeable future use" based on NEPA and DOE guidance to Article 2. Definitions. Section D (incorrectlv noted as E) Subsection 1 The Board accepted DCD's recommendation to add the language "and further amended on Mav 11. 2009 as Ordinance #06-0511-09." Subsection 4 Chairman Sullivan stated a comment letter was received from Karen Rentz suggesting the following language be added to the end of this subsection: "The required buffer shall include any adjacent wetlands, landslide areas and/or erosion hazard areas and required buffers, but, shall not extend across paved roads or other lawfully established structures or hardened surfaces." This is similar to the issue of functionally isolated areas that were addressed in the Critical Areas Ordinance. Margaret Clancy stated that because of the way the SMP is written, the suggest language may make it more confusing. After further discussion the Board directed staff to draft language regarding functional isolation by existing roads and structures for review and approval at a later date. Subsection 5 The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to increase the building setback from five (5) feet to ten (10) feet in the first paragraph in order to allow greater access for construction and maintenance of property. The Board felt that DCD's recommended language in the second paragraph which reads "and includes the airspace above." is confusing and agreed to change the language to read "and is a three dimensional space that includes the airspace above". Discussion ensued regarding DCD's recommendation to increase all shoreline buffers to 150 feet. Commissioner Austin stated that he realizes there are many people who want to have a reduced buffer, however, the SMP allows variances with mitigation as well as extensive opportunities to create views and pedestrian access to the water through a variety of methods. Chairman Sullivan agreed and added that there were also people advocating for a much larger buffer. He feels 150 feet is a compromise. The Board agreed Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 with DCD's recommended language in Subsection 5 (i) as follows: "Marine shores. A minimum buffer of 150 feet shall be maintained in all shoreline environments." Subsection 6 The Board agreed to change the language of this section to coincide with the language ofthe policy they changed earlier. This section will read "The Countv shall recognize and applv a buffer or setback established bv an existing plat or a development agreement that is consistent with RCW 36.70(8)" Subsection 8 DCD recommends a sentence be added to the end of this section which reads "Existing native vegetation shall be retained, and planting of native vegetation is preferred over non-native and ornamental vegetation." The Board agreed to change DCD's recommended language by striking out the words "over non-native and ornamental vegetation.". Subsection 9 The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommended language as follows: "When located to avoid areas of noted sensitivity and habitat an area shall be permitted for "active use" within an approved buffer provided the area does not exceed twentv (20) percent of the required buffer area, or is configured to span at least fifteen (15) linear feet ofthe water frontage, whichever is greater. This regulation shall not applv retroactivelv to existing uses except when new use or development is proposed." Subsection 10 Chairman Sullivan stated that a comment was received from Karen Rentz suggesting that the word "and" be changed to "or" in the title "Buffer Reduction and Averaging" as well as in the first sentence where it reads "... Chapter 18.22.270(6) and (7)." The Board agreed to make these changes and to add "JCC" before of the word Chapter in that same sentence. The Board also agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to strike out the following in the first sentence "in 6.1.D.6". Subsection 11 (incorrect\v noted as 10) Commissioner Johnson stated that a comment letter was received from the Tribe expressing concern that a decision to increase the width of a buffer should not be conditioned because they have a fear that it will promote armoring the way the SMP is written. The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to change the word "depth" to "width" in the first sentence. DCD's recommended changes to Subsection II(i) read "Susceptible to severe erosion unless structural erosion control measures (i.e.. shoreline armoring) are constructed to protect the development: or". Based on the Tribes comments, the Board agreed to change DCD's recommended language for Subsection II(i) to read "Susceptible to severe erosion resulting in adverse impacts to the shoreline." The Board accepted the following changes recommended by DCD. Subsection IHii) "Susceptible to health and safety risks caused bv stream or river charmel migration; or" Subsection 11(iii) "Susceptible to health and safety risks caused bv flooding - from sea, river/stream; or" Subsection 1 Hiv) "On steeplv sloped (>25%) land adiacent to the ordinary high water mark." Subsection 12 (incorrectlv noted as 11) The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to add the word "width" before the word "requirement" in the first sentence. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21,2009 Section E (incorrectly noted as F) Subsection 1 The Board agreed to change the word "shall" in this sentence to "mav". Subsection Hiii) The Board agreed to change the word "setback" in this sentence to "buffer". Subsection 2 After reviewing a comment letter and discussing DCD's recommended 300 foot buffer, the Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to add this entire section and Figure la-d regarding non- conforming lots and common line buffer. Subsection 3 (ureviously 2) The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to add the words "requirements" and "or 2" and to strike out the previous subsection 3. (i), (ii.) and (iii.) Subsection 4 The Board changed the word "shall" to "mav" in the last sentence as recommended in a comment letter from DOE. Subsection 4(iv) The Board accepted DCD's recommendation to strike the word "Pedestrian". Pal!:e 6-11 throul!:h 6-14. Title 2 (incorrectly noted as 21) Historic. Archaeololrical. Cultural. Scientific and Educational Resources. Section C. subsection 7 Commissioner Sullivan noted that in a comment letter received from the Point No Point Treaty Council it was suggested the County Sheriff, Coroner and State Archaeologist be added to the list of agencies that will be contacted in the event human remains are inadvertently discovered during development. The Board agreed to add a new Subsection 7 which will read: "Upon inadvertent discoverv of human remains. the County Sheriff. Coroner and State Department of Archaeologv and Historic Preservation must be immediatelv notified." and change the previous Subsection 7 to 8. Point No Point Treaty Council also expressed concern about signage for sensitive areas. It was agreed that further research needs to be conducted before finalizing language on this issue. Pal!:e 6-14 throul!:h 6-16. Title 3 (incorrectly noted as 22) Public Access Section A Subsection 1 The Board agreed with DCD's recommendations to add the word "public" before the word "shorelines" in the first sentence. Subsection 2 The Board agreed to add the word "tribes". Subsection 3 The Board agreed to change this section to read as follows: "The Countv should work with appropriate agencies and individuals to acquire lands that can provide phvsical access to public waters for public use." Section B. subsection 3 The Board agreed to direct staff to add language to this section regarding culturally sensitive sites. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 Pal!:es 6-17 throul!:h 6-20. Title 4 (incorrectlv noted as 23) Vel!:etation Conservation Section A Subsection 3 The Board agreed with DCD's recommendation to strike the word "new" and add the words "native shoreline". Subsection 4 The Board agreed with DCD's recommendation to add the sentence "Trimming and oruning are generallv oreferred over removal of native vegetation." Subsection 5 The Board agreed with DCD's recommendation to add the word "/or" after the word "and" in the last sentence. Subsection 6 The Board agreed to add a new section 6 as recommended by DCD. The previous section 6 will change to 7 and the previous section 7 will change to 8. Subsection 7 (Dreviouslv 6) The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommended language changes as follows: "Vegetative debris in the buffer that creates a fire hazards to existing structures mav be reduced bv chiooing if the chiooed material is returned to the original location. Fallen tree trunks mav not be removed or chiooed." Chairman Sullivan stated that this section is included under policies, but, it is more like a regulation and he suggested it be moved to section B as subsection 9. Margaret Clancy stated that subsection 6 is also more like a regulation and may need to be moved to section B as well. The Board agreed to move both sections 6 and 7 to section B as new subsections 9 and 10. Subsection 8 (previously 7) The Board agreed to accept DCD's recommendation to add the following language after the word "County" in the last sentence, "mav require soecial reoorts reg:arding vegetation. and". .(y,) The Board agreed to DCD's recommendation to change the word "is" to "are". (vi.) The Board agreed to DCD's recommendation to add the word "should" before the word "incorporate". Section B The Board concurred to accept all DCD's recommended language with the following modifications to subsections 3 and 4 and the insertion of policies 6 and 7 as regulations 9 and 10 that were previously discussed. Subsection 3 (ii) Commissioner Austin stated that the language in this regulation may exceed the County's authority to enforce vegetation management outside required buffer areas. After further discussion the Board agreed to add the following language to this section "and orovide lawns or ground cover" after the word structure. Subsection 4 (viii) Commissioner Johnson stated that this section prohibiting the removal of downed trees goes against the concept of possibly having too much fuel in the event of a forest fire. In some cases, trees may need to be removed. The Board directed staff to reword this section so it reflects the guidelines of the FireWise program. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 Pal!:es 6-20 and 6-21. Title 5 (incorrectlv noted as 24) Water Qualitv and Ouantitv Section A Commission Sullivan noted that it was suggested by Public Works to move language from subsection lion page 8-32 regarding pervious materials and insert it under this section as subsection 6. Michelle McConnell suggested leaving the language in subsection lion page 8-32 and adding a subsection 6 to this section which is more broad and not specific to transportation which reads: "Encourage pervious materials and other appropriate low impact development techniques where soils and geologic conditions are suitable and where such practices could measurablv reduce stormwater runoff. The Board agreed to the change. Section B. subsection 4 Commission Johnson stated this section prohibits, among other things, the release of genetically modified organisms (GMO). A citizen comment was received stating that some of our oysters are already genetically modified. The Board agreed to consider rewording the term "genetically modified organisms" as shown on line 15 of page 6-21 to specifY "detrimental organisms" in order to be consistent with the sections in Article 8 relating to GMO's. Pal!:es 6-21 and 6-22. Title 6 (incorrectlv noted as 25) Shoreline Setbacks and Heil!:ht Section A. subsection 2 (incorrectlv noted as 1) The Board agreed to accept DCD' s changes to this section so it will read "Proponents of a development on no-bank or low bank marine shorelines are encouraged to locate the bottom of a structure's foundation higher than the level of expected future sea-level rise." Section B. subsection 1 The Board agreed to increase the building setback from five (5) to ten (10) feet on the landward edge of the shoreline buffers required by this program. ARTICLE 7 - SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Pal!:es 7-1.7-2.7-3 and 7-4. Title 1 (incorrectlv noted as 2) Beach Access Structures Section A. subsections 1. 4. 5. 7. 8 (subsection 8 is incorrectlv noted as 5) and 9 (incorrectlv noted as 6) The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes with the following modifications. Commissioner Johnson noted that the word "shall" in subsection 9 needs to be changed to "should". Chairman Sullivan stated the Board received a comment about re-instating subsection 8 (incorrectly noted as 5). Michelle McConnell explained that DCD is proposing to relocate the language in this subsection to section D "Regulations". It is shown as D 4 on page 7-3. The Board agreed to reinstate the subsection and to reword it as follows "Beach access structures should be designed to minimize the amount of clearing and grading, excavation, and other forms of shoreline alteration so that they don't require substantial bank or slope modifications." Chairman Sullivan discussed a comment received late in the process from the State Parks regarding water trails. Margaret Clancy stated the suggestions made in that comment would fit best in either the "Recreation" or "Public Access" section. Chairman Sullivan asked staff to find a place for it and report back on where it is located. Commissioner Austin noted that there are many other suggestions in the State Parks comment letter that will be discussed later. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 Section B. subsection 1 The Board agreed to accept DCD's addition of this section. Section C. subsections 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes. Chairman Sullivan stated the State Parks had comments about subsection 3 "Natural" where it states "Public beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional use..... State Parks has a camp process already in place and they feel that having to go through an additional permit process through the County for conditional use is excessive and will cost taxpayers money to do both. He doesn't know the State Park's camp regulations process well enough to say that it adequately addresses the County's concerns. Margaret Clancy stated that all agencies have to comply with development permit processes. There are provisions in the SMP to accommodate State parks, public access and development of recreational facilities, especially water oriented recreational facilities on the shoreline. The provisions and standards were developed giving consideration to the interests of State, County and private parks. It was intended that most park developments requiring a conditional use permit would go through the discretionary conditional use permit process which does not require a public hearing or hearing examiner decision. This process saves costs for taxpayers while still allowing for a more detailed review and requires approval by the DOE. The Board agreed to review this further when discussing the "Use Table". Chairman Sullivan noted another comment on this section received from Peter Downey who wants to keep regulations on beach access under local authority and control. Michelle McConnell explained there seems to be some misperception in terms of local control and requiring conditional use permits. When DOE is involved in the review of a conditional use permit they are not applying different standards. They are essentially double-checking the County's work to insure that the County is applying its program adequately and accurately. The Board agreed that no language changes will be made. Section D. subsections 1 throul!:h 13 Commissioner Johnson asked how staff came up with the figure of 500 feet as noted in subsection 6 (previously 5) (iii) which states "When allowed, beach access structures may be located within the shoreline buffer, provided that ... There is no other available public beach access within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed access site"? He also questioned using the term "reasonable distance" as noted on page 7-8 in Title 2 (incorrectly noted as 26), section D, subsection 1 that states "Private boat launches shall be allowed only when public boat launches are unavailable within a reasonable distance." Margaret Clancy noted that the figure of 500 feet is arbitrary, but, not capricious. They attempted to pick a distance to a persons house that they would be willing and able to walk. The Board agreed that 500 feet is a reasonable distance. Margaret Clancy explained that the reason they used the term "reasonable distance" rather than using a specific number with regard to the boat launch language is because most boat launches have to be driven to. She agrees that the term is potentially difficult to administer. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is tempted to say that a boat launch shall be allowed only when a public boat launch is not available within five miles. This would prevent boat launches from being scattered along the beaches. Michelle McConnell added that it is the intent to minimize the proliferation of individual structures which is why DCD is proposing the differentiation between public and private structures. Public structures serve a greater public interest and thereby, minimizes the need for private structures such as docks, piers and boat launches. Chairman Sullivan noted that staff changed the language from "two miles" to "a reasonable distance." Margaret Clancy stated that it may be worthwhile to look at the inventory maps to review the distribution of boat launches. Most of the existing boat launches in Jefferson County are fairly spread out. Five miles Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 might not be enough distance. Chairman Sullivan noted that staff will want to consider shoreline miles during their review. Chairman Sullivan discussed another comment from State Parks regarding Title 1, section D, subsection 6 (previously 5), (i) on page 7-3. Due to ADA requirements they are suggesting the word clear be added to this section so it reads "The clear width of any walkway, staircase, tower or tram shall not exceed five (5) feet; and." Commissioner Austin stated that the word "public" should be added to that section to prevent private structures from being held to ADA standards. Margaret Clancy stated that public structures are already required to meet ADA standards, however, the Board could add a regulation that states "Public structures shall be designed to meet ADA standards." Based on the senior and disabled population in Jefferson County, Chairman Sullivan feels that private structures should also be built to those standards to allow access for the older and disabled population. Commissioner Johnson disagreed and stated that he would not make a regulation requiring individuals to spend more money to make their private structures ADA accessible. He is not in favor of making that change. He is in favor of adding the word "public" so it is clear that all public structures must meet ADA requirements. Commissioner Austin noted that if the Board approves a regulation requiring private structures to meet ADA standards, then there would have to be a ramp or an elevator anywhere there are stairs. This would apply to every new house and beach structure. Ramps must be within a certain slope and carmot be too steep. He thinks the Board needs to be very careful not to impose draconian and expensive regulations on private structures. Requiring a wheel chair ramp down to every beach will be extremely expensive and large footprint structures which may not be in keeping with the guidance on limiting the proliferation of individual structures. The Board agreed to make the following changes to Title 1, Section D: Subsection 2 to read "Public beach access structures shall be subject to this section and Article 6 section 3 (Public Access) of this program and conform to ADA standards." Subsection 4 accept this new section. Subsection 6 (Dreviouslv 5) to read "When allowed, private beach access structures may be located within the shoreline buffer, provided that..." Subsection 6 (Dreviouslv 5). (i) to read "The clear width of any walkway, staircase, tower or tram shall not exceed five (5) feet and be at least three (3) feet; and..." Pal!:es 7-5 throul!:h 7-19. Title 2 (jncorrectlv noted as 26) Boatinl!: Facilities: Boat Launches. Docks. Piers. Floats. Lifts. Marina. and Moorinl!: Buovs Section A. subsections 1 throul!:h 13 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes. Subsection 11 was moved to section H, subsection 2 on page 7-18; subsection 12 was moved to section D, subsection 2; and subsection 13 was moved section A, subsection 4. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21,2009 Jeff Stewart suggested that the County consult with the State Department ofFish and Wildlife (DFW) regarding DFW's concern that docks need to be longer to avoid impacts to nearshore functions. This is in conflict with the SMP that limits the length of docks to 60 feet and requires individuals to apply for a variance. Margaret Clancy responded that initially it was proposed that there be no specified length limit for docks in the SMP for that reason. However, the County was advised by the DOE to include a dimensional standard for docks in the SMP. She also noted that docks require state and federal permitting from DFW and the Corps of Engineers which have specific standards and design requirements for property owners that address length, width, piling spacing, materials, amount of light penetration, integrating material, etc. She feels it is more advisable for the County not to specifY a length limit for docks and to defer to the permit processing of the state and federal agencies. Chairman Sullivan noted that section F, subsection 5 on page 7-12 also includes language that reads "The Administrator may approve a different dock or pier length when needed to: i) A void known eelgrass beds, forage fish habitats, or other sensitive nearshore resources; or ii) Reach adequate depths to accommodate watercraft; or iii) Accommodate shared use." He asked ifthis language is comprehensive enough or if language about meeting the permit standards of other agencies should be added? Jeff Stewart stated the intent is to have some kind of provision tor the County. He asked if the County wants to say that there are some places where docks are inappropriate because the water is too shallow? Historical this has not been an issue, but, that doesn't mean it won't be. The Board agreed to discuss this further when they review page7- 12. Subsection 9 Chairman Sullivan suggested adding "tribes" to the list of agencies that will be contacted for comments when reviewing proposals for new or expanded marinas and public boat launches. The Board agreed. Section B. subsections 1 throul!:h 6 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes including the language in subsection 1 (v) which states moorage used for float planes is prohibited. He asked ifthis is primarily due to the difference in approach between a boat and a float plane? Michelle McConnell stated that there is a real difference in the potential for land use conflicts when there are float planes flying in and out as opposed to a boat pulling up to and away from a dock. Chairman Sullivan noted that many comments were received regarding industrial piers. He suggested adding wording that industrial piers are prohibited in the identified shoreline designations of "Natural", "Conservancy" and "Shoreline Residential" so they would be limited to "High Intensity" shoreline designations? Margaret Clancy noted that industrial piers are already prohibited in the "Natural" shoreline designation. The Board agreed to add language to both subsection 4(vi) "Conservancy" and subsection 5(vi) "Shoreline Residential" that reads: "Industrial piers are prohibited." The Board agreed to also add a definition for "Industrial Piers" to Article 2. Section C. subsections 1 throul!:h 7 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes. Section D. subsections 1 throul!:h 3 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes. Chairman Sullivan gave a reminder that staff is reviewing the issue of "reasonable distance" as noted in subsection I. Section E. subsections 1 throul!:h 9 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes with the exception that the words "a substantial number of people" in subsection 1 (ii) be changed to "the public" and that the word Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21, 2009 "should" be changed to "shall" in subsection 5(iii). Section F. subsections 1 throul!:h 19 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes. Section G Subsection 1 The Board agreed to accept DCD's changes to add a new section (iii) which reads: "The project includes ecological restoration measures to improve baseline conditions over time; and" thereby increasing the total number of sections to (vi). Subsection 2 The Board agreed to add the following language as section (vi) "River mouths." Subsection 3(vii) Based on comment letters from the Point No Point Tribe and the State Department of Health, the Board agreed to change the language "Environmental Health Guidelines for Marina Development and Operation" to read "National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)." Section H Subsection 1 The Board agreed to add the following language proposed by DCD "that individuallv or cumulativelv" to the end of this section. Section (iv) under this subsection was changed to read "They do not pose a threat to a commercial shellfish growing area classification or reduce the ability to upgrade the classification. " Subsection 2 The Board agreed to add new language proposed by DCD to read "The installation and use of mooring buoys in marine water shall be consistent with all applicable state laws, including WAC 246-282, the current National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), and other state Department ofFish & Wildlife, Health, and/or Natural Resources standards." Subsection 3 (oreviouslv 2) Commissioner Johnson discussed comments received from Plauche' and Stock. The Board agreed to change DCD's recommended language as follows: "Private recreational mooring buovs on state-owned aquatic lands shall not be used for residential (living on the boat) or commercial purposes." Subsection 8 (ureviouslv 7) The Board agreed to change the last sentence to read "Under no circumstances shall mooring buoy density exceed state Department of Health and National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards." Chairman Sullivan noted that a comment was received from Jefferson County Environmental Health Supervisor Neil Harrington which suggests adding a subsection 9 to read "The capacity of each mooring buoy may not exceed one boat and its appurtenant shore access craft." This would allow two boats per buoy. It was agreed to make the suggested change. The Board will continue SMP deliberations during a special meeting on Wednesday, September 23,2009 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 21,2009 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 :52 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. MEETING AD1OTTRJ::IED --- '.. ." .. I Y ('" SEAL' I.' --" ... ' .:.,-". J,' .", f.'~ '.' " ,.. '. · ''''lJ'. i~ \ Q \. \. '" < I.'. : .'~ '.... . , <~ l. ... . ~ ',' , . .~ ',,' i . ;.~ ,1_ f.1 I, . . , l. i \.. .. .,. ..' . " . v.\.. ~ ~.J .__:. '&. ~ ,,; ~ #'".~.. ,.~.,~ ~ AITES~ ^ '-, s':; " \ " :. (. .., ^ .... 'i~ L~~reh~~~:~lJ"~4~j Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS D~d~# -" r:i)) A~ ~ -.---- Phil Johnson, Me ber J"eb".~ Page 18