Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101909 ~~ tOMAhIl.. ~/~~, ~~~ Oc.\ ~!:; :\ ~\ I..... ~.a-<I \ ;' \~ ~/ "1Sl/INO"\.I:J/ ~-~ District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. SuJlivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of October 19, 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 requested to submit additional documentation to be considered by the County and made part of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) hearing record because it relates to new science, specifically, a new scientific report that was issued last week on evidence of near zero habitat harm from near shore development which shows there is no relationship between human installed stressors and habitat factors; a citizen stated that he feels it is the responsibility of the Board to manage economic development in Jefferson County and he questioned what actions are being taken to improve the economy; another citizen reported on national and local weather forecasts, and that he expects 1-1033 will pass leaving Jefferson County with an economic disaster; a citizen commented on budget consulting services and that he feels nothing has been done by Jefferson County to promote open government or comply with the Public Records Act; a citizen presented the Board with copies ofthe U.S. Constitution to review in light of the SMP and commented on what he believes are qualifying characteristics for County Commissioners; a citizen commented on courthouse security and clarified that he is not video taping the Commissioners' meetings on behalf of his company; a citizen expressed his opinion about the non-disclosure of documents and how he feels Jefferson County continues its facade of open government; a citizen expressed the need for sanican facilities to be located near the Qui1cene River. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO, 56-09 re: HEARING NOTICE: 2009 3'd Quarter Supplemental Budget Extension - Appropriations; Various County Departments; Hearing Scheduled for November 2, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse 2. RESOLUTION NO, 57-09 re: Vacation of a Road, Portion of Platted Olele Place; Eric and Andrea Harrier, Michael Brasfield and Laura Eickhoff, Petitioners 3. AGREEMENT re: Individual Employment and Person to Person, Developmental Disabilities Program; Jefferson County Public Health; Concerned Citizens ofPorks 4. AGREEMENT re: Project SEARCH, Developmental Disabilities Division; Jefferson County Public Health; Concerned Citizens of Forks 5. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Purchasing Agreement for the Acquisition of Goods and Services; Jefferson County Sheriff; City of Tacoma Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 19,2009 6. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated October 9, 2009 Totaling $3,182.45; October 12, 2009 Totaling $748,919.93; October13, 2009 Totaling $3,322.46; October 15, 2009 Totaling $1,335.84 7. Payment of Jefferson County AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated October 15, 2009 Totaling $113,445.71 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners and the County Administrator each reported as follows: Commissioner Sullivan: . A Jefferson Transit bus driver was assaulted last night at the Park and Ride facility, but, is reported to be doing fine. The attacker is in police custody. . The Tri Area Sewer Project is very important for the economy and will stimulate revenue. Commissioner Austin: . State and Local Board's of Health are sending a message that it is important to get flu and Swine Flu vaccinations. It is also important to sneeze into your arm rather than your hand and to wash your hands to prevent the spread of germs. Commissioner Johnson: . Chimacum Creek and "Jimmy Come Lately" Creek are showing good salmon returns. County Administrator Philip Morley: . He will check with legal counsel on whether the County can accept additional documentation to be made part of the SMP hearing record. . Jefferson County has an economic development plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and he is working with Team Jefferson on broadening its support with private businesses and other public agencies. Briefing on Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Comprehensive Update: Long Range Planning Lead Michelle McConnell reported that staff is working to make the Board's revisions to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). She presented a revised list of changes titled "pick list" which supplements the "pick list" dated October 5, 2009 and includes staff edits for the Board to review and approve. As requested by the Board new text was prepared by staff for various terms that are included on the second page of the "pick list". One of the terms the Board requested to be defined is "Public Waters", however, after consultation with Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez, staff proposes that it not be included as a specific defmition in Article 2 of the SMP, because it is not defined anywhere in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) or Washington Administrative Code (WAC). It is best if the County is not the first to define that term. David Alvarez added that there is case law which says Merriam's 3,d Edition of the Webster's Dictionary can be used anytime there is not a statutory definition of a word. Michelle McConnell asked for direction on the definition for the term "Hazard Tree". She noted that the Board agreed on a specific definition during deliberations on the SMP and directed staff to consult with the Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 19,2009 State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on that definition. After conferring with DNR Regional Forester Ross Goodwin, staff was told that the definition is vague and may make interpretation difficult for the County. To address this issue staff prepared a recommended definition for the Board to review. She noted that DNR still has concerns with the portion of the definition that reads "presents a risk to persons or property". She noted that the portion referring to "one and one half tree lengths", or distance from a structure, is based on policy guidance from DNR. Discussion ensued regarding the reasoning behind the Board including the language "presents risk to persons or property" which is that trees along public access trails can pose harm to people even though there are no structures within the distance of one and one half tree lengths. County Administrator Philip Morley noted that the first part of staff's recommendation stilI contains the word "persons", however, the subsequent conditions would limit the removal of trees only if they posed harm to property. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern with a condition in this definition that says a hazard tree must have "a root ball more than fifty percent exposed". Ifhe had a tree with a root ball that was 48% exposed he would consider it a hazard tree. Philip Morley asked staff whether the DNR standard is simply guidance for the County or if the County must have the same standard of hazard tree as DNR? Stacie Hoskins replied that consistency is important, but, the County can vary in its definitions. Chairman Sullivan noted that DNR is primarily concerned with Forest Practices while the County has a broader responsibility that includes people and property. David Alvarez agreed and stated that while Forest Practices and the Shoreline Management Act may overlap at times, they each have very separate focuses. Commissioner Austin suggested removing the exclusionary language such as "To be considered hazardous, there must be ..." and rewording the definition with more flexible language such as "A tree will be considered hazardous if..." Philip Morley stated that in the future the definition could be interpreted as containing an exclusive list of what would be considered a hazardous tree. He proposed the language be changed to read: "Hazardous trees will include, but, are not limited to, conditions where there is a permanent primary structure, ..." Regarding the concern about the language of "a root ball more than fifty percent exposed" he suggested the language be changed to "a root ball significantly exposed". The Board agreed to make these changes to staff S recommended definition of "Hazardous Tree". Commissioner Austin stated that after contemplating the material received from citizens he would like to revisit the issue of aquaculture and the Board's decision made during deliberations to prohibit net pens. If the County proceeds with the prohibition of net pens, then it will be in effect for 7 years which is when the next update of SMP will take place. Perhaps the Board should consider allowing a limited number of net pens which would be subject to review by DCD staff in conjunction with state and local regulations. Net pens which degrade the quality of surrounding waters should not be allowed. He believes this would give the County the authority to regulate net pens without absolutely prohibiting them. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 19, 2009 "~.,o,.o" ~~.~..~ ",....,\(,~" Al Scalf noted that there is an established process for making amendments to the SMP on an annual cycle. Individuals can apply for an SMP amendment each year. Chairman Sullivan asked ifit is possible to place a limit on the number net pen operations in the County? David Alvarez stated that it is much more defensible to have those types of permit applications reviewed through a hearing examiner process. Establishing a number limit creates a fairness issue. Discussion ensued regarding citizen comments, the type of development permit review this would fall under, and the Planning Commission's impossibly strict allowance of net pens that basically equate to a prohibition due to the inability to meet required conditions. Staff noted that net pens are also prohibited in the current SMP. Commissioner Johnson and Chairman Sullivan agreed to uphold their previous decision to prohibit net pen operations on the basis that there is an established process for making future revisions to the SMP. Commissioner Austin respects the decision of his fellow Board members, however, he is in favor of allowing net pen operations under certain conditions. He feels it is reasonable to allow net pens as a conditional use permit. The world's population of wild fish is severely stressed and he believes that aquaculture will only increase in the future so it makes sense for the County to allow for such future uses. David Alvarez discussed issues with the SMP that concern him. Item 8. on page 8-28 discusses a 30% required open space of a subdivision area. This appears to be an arbitrary number that is not going to satisfy the proportionality of the nexus requirement of cases like Isla Verde where they had a 30% setaside in a subdivision which was struck down because they couldn't show why 30% was required. He asked ifthey could strike the "30%" number and replace it with "serve the purpose" or change the word "shall" to "should" to address this legal concern? The County can require public access, but, it can't require a specific percentage of the property to be designated for public access. Michelle McConnell suggested this section be moved from "Regulations" and placed in "Policies". He also questioned item D 6 (iii) on page 7-3 which states that beach access structures are not allowed if someone else has one within 500 feet of the proposed site. Michelle McConnell clarified that it reads "public" beach access within 500 feet of the proposed site. Private beach access structures would not have an impact in this case. In item 3 on page 9-2 it states "When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark." He asked who makes that determination? Michelle McConnell answered that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) makes that determination. This exemption language came directly from the RCW and WAC. He asked how DCD staff will measure or prove or disprove that there are adverse impacts on aesthetics as noted in item D 1 on page 8-27? Michelle McConnell replied that it deals with the public access concept as Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 19,2009 !J"""'" 1.'\ '~ ~~s",<':'",'.;, an overarching goal of the statute. Access includes visual as well as physical and the visual includes both looking from land out at the water and being on the water and looking back at the land. Stacie Hoskins added that DCD staff would probably default to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) which includes an area on aesthetics. On page 7-34, under item 5 it states "The County shall require applicants for new or expanded structural shoreline armoring to provide credible evidence of erosion ..." David Alvarez asked who provides that evidence and what is considered credible evidence? Stacie Hoskins replied that a geotechnical report would be considered credible evidence and would be supplied by the applicant. David Alvarez asked if the evidence would have to be in the form of a geotechnical report or some other written document? Stacie Hoskins answered that staff would conduct a visit to view the erosion. Michelle McConnell added item J 1 on page 7-37 lists the application requirements that may also document credible evidence. Discussion ensued regarding the language structuring of item J 1 on page 7-37 and the Board agreed that this language needs to be changed in order to prevent confusion regarding information the County "may" or "shall" require to support a permit application for any type of shoreline stabilization. The Board directed staff to work on this language and make all the changes agreed to so far and bring a draft back to the Board for review next week. Staff agreed to have the draft SMP available by Thursday, October 22,2009 and to post a copy on the County's website. David Alvarez suggested the SMP be codified under a separate number at the appropriate time. Stacie Hoskins noted that the County is unable to meet the October 30, 2009 deadline for submitting the SMP to the DOE. Therefore, staffwill be preparing a letter for the Board's approval next week that will be sent to the DOE asking for an extension ofthe deadline. The Board met in Executive Session from 11: 15 a.m. to 11 :30 a.m. with the County Administrator and Clerk of the Board regarding personnel under the RCW 42.30.110(1 )(g) exemption HiringlDiscipline/Performance Review as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. At the conclusion of the Executive Session the Board resumed the regular meeting and took the following action. SETTLEMENT AUTHORIZATION: Commissioner Johnson moved to authorize the County Administrator to enter into negotiations to reach settlement of an employee grievance not to exceed $3,000. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Commissioners: . Schedule Coordination . Budget Update Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 19,2009 ~-'!J""'\ 4.,-:-+ ," <' I{r"'~ . Miscellaneous Items Ferry Advisory Committee Community meetings and public participation in County government Jefferson Transit incident update November 5 Joint City-County meeting Comprehensive Plan docket process Indigent Defense Update on IMQ meeting in Port Ludlow Mineral severance fee legislation NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 3: 19 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. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion in the absence of Commissioner Johnson. The motion carried. MEETING Al)JOURNIW .... ...... '" f Coo ~ ", . '.\lJ'~' f,... SEAL/~' '.' ,"",t '.\'. -- .." 1.'. "'!-'N" ...~. a .'...' " ~_. _l....,'/..;~._._..._...:.'.'\, . $ " ,',,' ",_,'">t'_' ". t"'" I',," .:. ,.',....."./1:} ",', ......-. ", .0" " , ..' , , ."'. t'l'i;t:.'. ." '. '''f..;.,;\;;:/'...:)..~(~'t.;! ' Vi , :. \.:r<:'".....', ,. '+,'. l~{::2;>~~,';/ I # .. __.. ",'":;;:;,:~.;^f"<;,:./....-. . - . -~-. . a \'w' ....:, ~ ..-. t- ... \.'~~. ~:", <..., \,..., ~.. '.. '" A TTEST?-"-." .; J' (.). 9' -~1" " (l c~_~.~-"L-(kC~~ Enn Lundgren, De'pu~ 0 Clerk ofthe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS g~"(l /. p/ ~.l// _ c<< ~Z~____ David Sullivan, Chair (]14~ Phil Johnson, Member t.~M Page 6